Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

African Affairs Board

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on what date Her Majesty's Government were officially advised of the composition of the African Affairs Board.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The African Affairs Board is a Standing Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and its composition is laid down in Article 67 of the Federal Constitution. The Constitution does not contain any provision for my right hon. and noble Friend to be informed of the names of those members of the Federal Assembly who, from time to time, form the Board.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the change in the composition of the Board, is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that it provides any safeguards at all?

Mr. Alport: The Board is constituted in accordance with the Constitution and therefore is fully effective in carrying out the work set for it in the Constitution.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Gentleman state how often the Board is consulted and how often its advice has been accepted?

Mr. Alport: As I have said, there is no provision in the Constitution for my right hon. and noble Friend to be consulted.

Devlin Commission

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what prior consultations he had with the Governments of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland and of Southern Rhodesia regarding the facilities to be afforded to the Devlin Commission during their inquiries within the Federation.

Mr. Alport: At the time of the setting up of the Devlin Commission, Her Majesty's Government were in close touch with the Governments of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and of Southern Rhodesia about the arrangements to be made for the Commission. It is not customary to reveal the details of consultations of this kind, but I can say that both the Governments concerned co-operated to the full in enabling the Commission's work to be carried out speedily and efficiently.

Mr. Hale: Did not anyone in the Commonwealth Relations Office think that when we are initiating a quasi-judicial inquiry some provision ought to be made for reasonable access to detained persons by their legal advisers and that reasonable provision ought to be made for those legal advisers to obtain full opportunities for consultation?

Mr. Alport: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Southern Rhodesian Government passed their Visiting Commissions Act which gave the Commission the same powers while sitting in Southern Rhodesia as it had in Nyasaland under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, and, therefore, the circumstances in which the Commission has been in Southern Rhodesia have been precisely the same as those operating in Nyasaland.

Mr. S. Silverman: Suppose the Devlin Commission became a little of a nuisance in demanding things in the pursuance of its inquiry that the Government of Nyasaland did not wish to give it. In view of the hon. Gentleman's answers, have we any method of preventing the Governments concerned from


expelling Mr. Justice Devlin as an undesirable immigrant?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, confusing in some ways the responsibilities of the Federal Government and of the Nyasaland Government. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that it was made quite clear when we last discussed this subject that it never was nor ever would be the intention of the Federal Government under their powers to interfere with the work and entry of officials wishing to enter the Federation on the service of the United Kingdom Government or Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Discussions

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the recent discussions of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Alport: I have nothing to add to my replies to the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 16th April.

Mr. Stonehouse: Have any discussions taken place with regard to the recent Acts which have been passed, particularly the Unlawful Organisations Act and the Preventive Detention Act? What action is proposed to prevent the implementation of these repressive Acts?

Mr. Alport: As I made clear on a previous occasion, consultations between my noble Friend and Commonwealth Governments are always confidential.

Mr. Bottomley: According to the Press, Sir Roy Welensky is soon expected in this country. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his visit will be merely social or for the purpose of official talks?

Mr. Alport: I am not in a position to make a statement on that matter at the moment.

Unlawful Organisations Act

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will exercise the powers

of Her Majesty's Government under the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Letters Patent, 1923, to prevent the implementation of the Unlawful Organisations Act, in view of the discriminatory nature of this legislation.

Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 18th June.

Mr. Stonehouse: As that Answer was, "No", may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very informative reply? May I ask two questions arising out of the reply? Is he aware that the unwillingness to act in this matter under the powers available to us gives the appearance that we are acting in collusion in the suppression of all the African political organisations? Secondly, what is the position of Mr. Harry Nkumbula, an elected member of the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia, when he travels to Salisbury, as he is president of one of the prescribed organisations referred to in the Schedule?

Mr. Alport: The point raised in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for the Federal Government. Regarding the first part of the supplementary question, the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken is quite in accordance with long-standing constitutional practice in our relations with self-governing territories overseas.

Sir A. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent record of the Southern Rhodesian Government in the management of their own affairs for many years before Federation? Does not he think that it would be quite wrong for any British Government to interfere with affairs there when we have difficulty in managing our own affairs in this country?

Mr. Bottomley: Would the Under-Secretary agree that the Government still have these powers under this Act and, if necessary, would use them?

Mr. Alport: I reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on a previous occasion that these powers have not been used by any Government, whether Labour or Conservative, since the inception of the Constitution more than thirty-six years ago.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that circumstances such as we have today have not arisen before, and that they are of a serious nature? Should not the Government give some indication to Parliament about where they stand in this matter?

Mr. Alport: On a previous occasion and today I gave a clear indication of precisely where the Government stand in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Legislative Council

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what recommendations the High Commissioner has made for the establishment of a Legislative Council for the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Mr. Alport: None, Sir. The Resident Commissioner has begun consultations with a Committee of the Joint Advisory Council, but these are, as yet, in their early stages.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the very hopeful fact that both Europeans and Africans in Bechuanaland are asking for the establishment of a Legislative Council, is not it desirable that these discussions should be speeded up? They have lasted many months now.

Mr. Alport: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that the discussions of the Committee of the Joint Advisory Council have lasted many months. They have only just begun. The hon. Gentleman will remember that among the number of African unofficials was the late Mr. Tshekedi Khama. This gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the work which he did in furthering the political development not only of his own tribe but of the whole of Bechuanaland.

Mr. Bottomley: May I, on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, add support to the hon. Member's tribute to a great African chief?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Schools and Universities (History Teaching)

Mr. Leather: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth

Relations whether he will initiate consultations with all Commonwealth Governments to explore the possibility of getting an agreed text book of Commonwealth history for use in all State schools and universities throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr. Alport: No, Sir. I do not think that such a project would be compatible with the tradition of academic freedom which all Commonwealth Governments wish to preserve.

Mr. Leather: Would it not be of help to get some agreement throughout the Commonwealth on this very important matter? Would it not be appropriate if the Commonwealth Education Conference, which is to meet in this country very shortly, were asked to give consideration to trying to show a little more sympathy of outlook, if nothing more, in this matter?

Mr. Alport: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the forthcoming Commonwealth Education Conference is a most important and significant development in co-operation among all Commonwealth countries in the sphere of education, but I do not think, frankly, that it would be either a suitable subject or a good precedent that a proposal should be made the first object of which is to curtail in some way normal academic freedom.

Scotland (Commonwealth Visitors)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what register is maintained by his Department of Scottish societies in the oversea Commonwealth; and what arrangements exist in his Department for interesting Commonwealth visitors in places of tourist, antiquarian or genealogical interest in Scotland such as Douglas, Lanarkshire.

Mr. Alport: The Commonwealth Relations Office does not maintain a register of Scottish societies in the Commonwealth, but United Kingdom High Commissioners are in close touch with Caledonian Societies in the Commonwealth countries in which they are serving.
In 1958–59 the Commonwealth Relations Office sponsored visits by forty-seven visitors from the Commonwealth to the United Kingdom. Of


these, thirty-three went to Scotland in the course of their official tours. The programmes of visits to places in Scotland of historical and cultural interest were arranged by the Scottish Information Office.
There are so many such places in Scotland that it has not been possible to include all of them—for instance, Douglas—in these itineraries.

Mr. Maitland: Is not my hon. Friend aware that Douglas is quite different from all other places in Scotland in that a forebear of his noble Friend, who was known as "Black Douglas," inflicted a smashing defeat on the English there in the year 1307? Is not this in itself a good reason why Commonwealth visitors, particularly those of Scottish extraction, should be brought to this scene of a great military triumph—and perhaps they might become interested in the industrial possibilities of the area at the same time?

Mr. Alport: We in the Commonwealth Relations Office are very well aware of the characteristics and qualities of Douglas, since it is the home of my right hon. and noble Friend. I do not think that either he or his neighbours would be satisfied at it being regarded as merely a place of antiquarian and genealogical interest.

Protected Territories (Admission of British Subjects)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he proposes to take to alter the present laws under which Her Majesty's Government have no power to procure the admission of British citizens to British protected territories.

Mr. Alport: The protectorates for which my noble Friend is responsible are Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland. His existing constitutional powers in those territories are considered adequate.
In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the position is that entry from outside the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland into those protectorates, whether of United Kingdom citizens or other persons, is a matter for the Federation, under Item 4 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Federation of Rhodesia

and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, 1953. The procedure for altering this Schedule is laid down in Article 98 of the Constitution.
Any proposal to vary the existing division of powers between the Federal and Territorial Governments is a matter which can be considered at the 1960 Conference but it would not be proper for me to particularise at this stage as to what might be included in the Agenda of the Conference.

Mr. Grimond: While not asking the Minister to particularise, may we take it that he is dissatisfied with a position in which British subjects, such as Mr. Colvin, are excluded from Nyasaland and not even the most friendly representations may be made, far less pressure be brought on the Government concerned? Can he explain why it is that in the case of Ireland, the Prime Minister thought it proper to make representations about the treatment of Irish nationals by the Irish Government, but apparently we find it difficult to make representations about the treatment of British nationals by the Government of the Federation?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman will realise that on all matters relating to the interests of this country and a Commonwealth country we are always closely in contact with the Government concerned. The case of Mr. Colvin, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is a different matter.

Mr. Hale: Would not the Under-Secretary of State make a specific reply to the question whether he is really pleased with this situation, whether he is expressing approbation of it, or whether he disapproves of action by the Rhodesian Government directed against British citizens with a long record of respectable and responsible residence within the territory?

Mr. Alport: It is not my responsibility, nor would it be proper for me, to comment on an action of a Commonwealth Government taken within powers which they possess and which have been conferred upon them by the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Hale: It is the responsibility of everybody in this country, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Mission Schools (Grants)

Mr. Wall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what grants it is proposed to make to mission schools in Basutoland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alport: The provision in the Basutoland 1959–60 estimates for grants-in-aid to mission schools is £259,700. This represents an increase of £21,000 over the previous financial year, and covers increased expenditure of schools which are already in the receipt of grants-in-aid as well as the employment of teachers at new schools built with the help of Colonial Development and Welfare funds.

Mr. Wall: I thank my hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. May I ask whether it is not the fact that missionary societies of all denominations are doing very fine educational work in Basutoland and that the more he finds it possible to increase the grants the more likely it is that primary education will be brought to the territory, and an advance made in secondary education?

Mr. Alport: The High Commissioner is considering what additional grants can be made. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the substantial progress in education which has been made in Basutoland, which is almost entirely due to the wonderful work of the missionary societies operating there.

Light Industries

Mr. Wall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what attempts are being made to introduce light industries into Basutoland, in particular, in the Maseru area.

Mr. Alport: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 30th April. The report of the preliminary survey is still awaited. In the meantime two small establishments, one producing soft drinks and the other producing building materials, have been established in the Maseru area.

Mr. Wall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a firm establishing itself in this area can look to the whole of South Africa as a market and not merely to

the restricted area of Basutoland? Will he do as much as possible to advertise that fact in order to attract important light industries to this area?

Mr. Alport: I think that there are great advantages for any industry coming to this area, although at present there are also certain difficulties. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are most anxious to do anything we can to develop the economic resources of Basutoland—both industrial and other resources.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not the fact that there is a demand for blankets by Africans from all over the Territory? Would not the hon. Gentleman consult the C.D.C. with a view to establishing a blanket mill on the same lines as the mill operating successfully at Blantyre-Limbe in Nyasaland?

Mr. Alport: It is largely a question of local economics, but when I was in South Africa I had the opportunity of talking to a representative of the C.D.C. regarding this project and I asked that the Corporation should look at it sympathetically when it had the opportunity to do so.

Africans (Liquor Permits)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many Africans in Basutoland have been issued permits by the Resident Commissioner of Basutoland, for the purpose of entering licensed premises in that territory, and in particular the dining room of the sole licensed hotel in Maseru, the Lancers Inn; by what authority these permits are issued; and what distinctions are imposed in this matter between Europeans and Africans.

Mr. Alport: Permits to obtain liquor on licensed premises for consumption on or off such premises have been issued to twenty-seven Africans in Basutoland. These permits, which are issued by the Resident Commissioner, are valid for the whole territory and are not limited to particular hotels or parts of hotels. No permit is required to enter the dining room of any hotel.
These permits relieve Africans of the disabilities laid down in the law about the sale and consumption of liquor.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that this action of Mr. Chaplain, the Commissioner, is quite illegal because under Section 21 of the Proclamation No. 75, Laws of Basutoland, page 964, permits apply only to off-licence sales? In any case, the permits are not used because the Basuto chiefs, including the Paramount Chief himself, think it quite derogatory that they should be treated in this way. Why cannot decent, civilised Africans like the Paramount Chief and his advisers enter the hotel and consume liquor there, if they so desire, just the same as decent, civilised Europeans can do?

Mr. Alport: I will certainly look into the allegations which the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the scope of the powers of the Resident Commissioner. It may well be that in some respects the continuance of this sort of regulation is over-paternalistic at the present. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that the object was not to prevent the African from sharing in the privileges of the European but, under international agreement, to prevent him from indulging in the white man's vice. I think it may be, as I say, that the ideas which gave rise to the agreements which took place before and after the First World War are out of date, but we must not underestimate the motive which lay behind the establishment of this form of regulation in earlier days.

Mr. Johnson: Even so, the hon. Gentleman admits that social conditions are changing, and Africans now can have the opportunity fully to share in a mixed society; so will he not agree that to make an issue of such permits is illegal, because Section 21 on page 964 definitely states:
A licence holder may hand any liquor so ordered in sealed bottles to the messenger of such customer."?
This is clearly off-licence custom, and hence it is quite wrong for the Commissioner to issue on his own discretion permits to certain people, and the Basutos do not like it.

Mr. Alport: I will certainly look into the legal position and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Bottomley: Will not the Under-Secretary of State agree, in view of the work which he himself did recently in meeting the Basuto delegation in a very

harmonious atmosphere, that it would be unfortunate if local officials tended to do away with that now?

Mr. Alport: I think that in the precise development to which the right hon. Gentleman referred we may in due course find a solution of the particular problem the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has raised.

African Graduates

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give the number of African graduates in Basutoland; how many of these have found employment in the Civil Service; how many have left Basutoland for work elsewhere; and how many are still unemployed.

Mr. Alport: There are at present 55 African graduates in Basutoland and 15 are on post-graduate courses outside the territory. Twenty-three are employed in the Civil Service. A further thirty-one have left Basutoland for employment elsewhere. Three of these are articled attorneys in the Orange Free State, who are practising in Basutoland. Three graduates are still unemployed.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the Under-Secretary of State fully aware how keenly the Basuto leaders feel about this matter? Does he realise that their young educated men in the Administration also feel the position very keenly and sincerely, as they still see Europeans holding jobs in the Administration when young educated Africans can, perhaps, take their place?

Mr. Alport: I am well aware of the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I think I made it clear on a previous occasion that we are very anxious indeed to see an increasing number of Basutos in the administration of their own affairs, but these detailed matters must be left to the discretion of the Administration on the spot.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

British-Protected Persons

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what facilities are afforded by the Union of South Africa Government to the Nyasaland Labour Representative and Northern Rhodesia Labour


Officer for visiting farms where British-protected persons of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia are sent by the Union Government after convicting them of pass laws offences.

Mr. Alport: The Nyasaland Labour Representative and Northern Rhodesia Labour Officer may at any time by arrangement accompany officials of the Union Department of Bantu Administration and Development on visits to the farms in question.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the shocking case of John Musa, a Nyasa herbalist of Johannesburg, who was picked up by the infamous "ghost squad" in Alexandra Township last October and taken to the farm of P. L. Potgeiter near Heidelburg? Is he aware that I have twelve sworn affidavits admitting beatings and punishments on this farm by this gentleman? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he will back to the hilt any action to help the Nyasaland Labour Officer at Johannesburg to do his job efficiently?

Mr. Alport: I know that the Federation representative in the Union is closely in touch with this problem. I would remind the lion. Gentleman that the Union Minister for Bantu Administration and Development has announced the temporary suspension of the scheme and has appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate the scheme.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this same Bantu Affairs Minister has admitted these charges, and the beatings which have been going on on this farm, and that Mr. Potgeiter was put off the list of African farmers who were allowed to take South African convict labour?

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Homicide Act, 1957 (Application)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if a decision has now been reached regarding the application of the Homicide Act, 1957, to the High Corn-mission Territories.

Mr. Alport: The question of the reform of the law relating to homicide in

force in the High Commission Territories is still being considered by the High Commissioner.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that I put a Question on this matter some months ago? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of the matter? Quite recently twelve Africans, on appeal to the Privy Council, have been refused the right of appeal and are under sentence of death, and three of them are women. In view of the urgency of this matter, will the hon. Gentleman look into it immediately?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman's Question on the Paper today and the original Question covered a very much wider problem than the specific one to which he has latterly referred, and I am in a position only to deal with the wider problem. The reason why it has taken time to reach a conclusion in this matter is that the basis, as I understand it, of the law of homicide in the High Commission Territories is Roman-Dutch as opposed to English. Therefore, a great deal of consideration has to be given to the development of ideas of law relating to homicide as they have developed in this country, and how it matches with and conforms to the development of the law with regard to homicide under Roman-Dutch law.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

B.O.A.C. Steward (B. J. Heddon)

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the release of Barry J. Heddon, a British Overseas Airways Corporation steward, now held on bail in Calcutta; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alport: None, Sir. The case is still before the Indian Courts, and has been adjourned until 29th June, bail having been granted. I will send my hon. Friend further details.

Mr. Eden: Will my hon. Friend say why this matter has taken such a long time already and what is being done by the Deputy High Commissioner's Office to attempt to speed it up? Can he tell me what representations were made by the


Deputy High Commissioner against the treatment this man received while held at Calcutta Gaol?

Mr. Alport: The speed or otherwise of the courts in India is a matter for the Indian judiciary, and not for me, but the man in question has been granted bail and is at the moment, as I understand it, living in an hotel in Calcutta and is satified with the representations which have been made on his behalf by his legal advisers. I can assure my hon. Friend that our representatives in Calcutta are watching this case, but it is a matter primarily for the operation of the normal processes of the law in India.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Race Relations

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Education whether he will bring to the attention of all schools the book entitled "Race Prejudice and Education," sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, in order to assist in the education of children in the principles of racial integration and to encourage more teaching of the nature and significance of the new Commonwealth.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I welcome the appearance of a book dealing objectively with this important question, but it would be a departure from long-established practice if I were to recommend a particular book for use in schools.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst I understand that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that it is very important to encourage wider teaching about the problems of race relations? Could not the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to encourage the establishment of some summer course for teachers, or other schemes of that nature, which would enable the work represented by a book of this sort to be brought to the attention of teachers?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider that, but I am advised by Her Majesty's inspectors that teachers are already doing a good job in teaching on this important question.

Mr. Blackburn: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no racialism amongst small children and that it is not necessary to call attention to it?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree. In visiting schools I have been struck by the truth of what the hon. Member has said, but I think that it is still also a fact that the wider question in its more historical aspects is worthy of some attention in the curriculum.

Primary Schools

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the fall in the number of those attending primary schools, and the extra accommodation now available in such schools, he will withdraw Circulars No. 280 and 313 and will encourage, whenever conditions permit, the admission of children under 5 years of age to nursery classes or nursery schools.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir, because it is still more important to concentrate on reducing the size of classes.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two aims are contradictory, and that there is a great demand both by a number of teachers' organisations concerned in reducing the size of classes and parents' organisations that where there is accommodation available in schools it should be used to introduce nursery schools and nursery classes?

Mr. Lloyd: That may be so in particular cases, but I think that, in general, priority must be given to reducing the size of classes.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Education how many primary schools are sited on stretches of trunk roads where there are no speed restrictions; and for how many of these schools no school crossing patrol is provided.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend really ought to get hold of this information. Is he aware that it is a matter of very great concern and that the parents of children who attend these schools are, not unreasonably, anxious for the safety of the children in view of the increasing speed and number of vehicles on these trunk roads? Will my right hon. Friend take care to see that some provision is


made for their safety while entering and leaving school?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a most important question but it has been felt that it is a matter for the responsibility of the local authorities, who are very much alive to it. In the case to which my right hon. Friend has drawn my attention, I am asking the authority to review all the safety precautions at the school concerned.

Physics Graduates

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education if he will give the figures of vacancies for physics graduates in grammar and other schools for which inquiry was made in October, 1958; and what is the explanation of any disparity between those figures and the intimation given to the hon. Member for Leyton recently that the vacancies were only twenty-six.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: One hundred and sixteen, Sir. The disparity is due to the fact that the hon. Member's Question of 30th April referred only to physics masters in boys' grammar schools.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in any case, there is a very serious shortage of physics graduates for teaching in schools? In these circumstances, what action is he taking to try to overcome this difficulty? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one minor reason for the shortage of physics graduates may be the fact that they are being more and more drawn into the Forces?

Mr. Lloyd: I doubt the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. According to a survey which we made recently, there has been a modest increase of between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. in the numbers of those teachers, and in our big expansion of the teacher-training colleges we are laying special emphasis on an increase in the number of mathematics, science and physics teachers.

Statistical Department

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Education whether his statistical department has yet been reorganised.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir, but I am taking steps to produce more useful

and up-to-date statistics for technical education.

Mr. Skeffington: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that his own Parliamentary Secretary said only a few months ago that looking at figures in the Ministry's reports was like looking up trains in last year's Bradshaw? Is it not very difficult for hon. Members to see the practical significance of some of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals when statistics are eighteen months to two years out of date? Should he not look at this matter again?

Mr. Lloyd: We are looking at it, and we are also in touch with the Treasury Organisation and Methods Division with a view to applying automatic data processing to the preparation of these statistics.

Mr. Skeffington: Is it not a fact that there is only one statistician in the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Art Galleries and Museums

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Education how many local authorities make use of the provisions of the Education Act, 1944, to give financial assistance to art galleries and museums, whether rate-aided or administered by trustees, in England and Wales.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Local education authorities do not need my approval for expenditure of this kind, and I cannot therefore provide information on this point.

Dr. Stross: Is it not a fact, nevertheless, that the Minister and previous Ministers have accepted responsibility, because in the past they have supplied percentage grants towards this cost where local authorities have given grants? In view of the fact that we are now faced with a block grant, and this service is essentially educational as well as being part of our cultural heritage, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to assist in future particularly by speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and pointing out how important it is that the provision shall now be made, especially in the provinces, for all museums and galleries?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension about the nature of the assistance that local education authorities give to the museums. It is in the nature of a payment in return for the services that the museums can give to schools and further education activities.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not a fact that a local authority which had not had an arrangement like that with its museums and which now began to make one would find under present legislation that the cost would fall entirely on the rates? Is that likely to make an authority more or less inclined to enter into arrangements of this kind?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a matter of deciding where a local authority can best obtain the assistance it needs for the particular purposes concerned. It may have been providing it, for example, in the schools themselves or it may find it more economical to get it from the museums, in which case it would do so.

Teachers

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education, in view of the continuing shortage of teachers and the need to reduce overcrowded classes, what further consideration is being given by his Department to proposals for the release of teachers now serving in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am examining various possibilities, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, but I cannot say more today.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether, in view of the terribly urgent need to reduce the size of classes and the fact that it is already recognised that it is more important to keep certain graduate teachers in schools than to put them in the Army, the right hon. Gentleman will make the strongest efforts to stop the calling up of teachers and will try to get back to the schools teachers who are wasting their time in the Forces?

Mr. Lloyd: I am already considering the matter.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education the latest figures for the

number of new teachers entering the profession this year, and for the wastage this year; and how these figures compare with those of the previous two years.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Since the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that we need 7,000 extra teachers each year if we are to cope, and that, while we would congratulate him on the crash programme, every educationist in the country is convinced that even the expanded training colleges programme, which will be eaten up by the three-year course, will leave us gravely in the lurch? Will he not take notice of the advice that he has received constantly, namely, that we need 16,000 extra places rather than 12,000, and will he take emergency steps to initiate a second crash programme?

Mr. Lloyd: I will take note of that point. I am looking into the question of a further measure of expansion.

Following is the Answer:


THE ESTIMATES FOR MAINTAINED AND ASSISTED SCHOOLS ARE AS FOLLOWS:


—
1956
1957
1958


Entry to the profession:





from training colleges
10,540
10,620
11,380


from universities including university departments of education
4,450
4,460
4,900


from other sources
2,160
2,470
2,520


Total
17,150
17,550
18,800


Loss to the profession:





through death and breakdown
870
830
870


through retirement on account of age
2,390
3,060
3,930


through domestic and other reasons
6,890
9,360
8,600


Total
10,150
13,250
13,400

It is not yet possible to give estimates for 1959.

Secondary School Places

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education the total number of places in all secondary schools expected to be available at the beginning of the next school year in London, Birmingham,


Essex, and the excepted district of Newcastle-under-Lyme, respectively; and what estimate has been made in each case of the number and proportion of 15-year-olds who are likely to stay on at school.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate the information I have available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the figures which he gave me a fortnight ago, showing that an increasing proportion of 15year-olds are staying on at school and that the percentage has risen in recent years from 25 to 32 per cent.? Is he aware that, although we know that one of the reasons for that is the lack of juvenile employment, we welcome the fact and we hope that local authorities are making full allowance for a continuance of this development?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, and we also are doing so in our reactions to the proposals of the local authorities.

Following is the information:


THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS AND PROPORTIONS OF 15-YEAR-OLD PUPILS IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS IN JANUARY, I960, ARE AS FOLLOWS:


—
Numbers
As percentage of 13-year olds in 1958


England and Wales
209,500
33·6


London
18,000
47·0


Birmingham
4,900
26·5


Essex
9,000
36·0


Newcastle-under-Lyme
530
37·0

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the number and proportion of children who have passed their 15th birthdays and are staying on at school this year have exceeded the expectations and estimates of the education authorities; and what special steps he is taking about the provision of additional places in the secondary schools in the coming school year.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This information will not be available until later this year, but I am sure that there will be enough places in secondary schools next year.

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out some sort of survey in view of the fact that, especially owing to the employment position in the last twelve months, it is likely that more parents will decide to keep their children at school for a longer period because they have more difficulty in getting jobs when they leave? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some special action to see that local education authorities get busy to ensure that children have full value for the extra period during which they will stay at school?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a very great increase in the rate of building of secondary schools. The rate has doubled in the last three years.

Mr. M. Stewart: When the right hon. Gentleman says that there will be enough places in secondary schools this year, may I take it that he does not mean that there will be enough to get into secondary schools all children of secondary school age, including those now in all-age schools?

Mr. Lloyd: All those who, so to speak, will be released into secondary schools as a result of reorganisation during the period.

Mr. Stewart: How can we be sure of that unless estimates have been made of the matter raised in my hon. Friend's Question?

Mr. Lloyd: We know the rate at which staying on at school is increasing year by year and, having made a generous allowance with regard to that, we can see as a result of the building programme that there will be ample to cover that number, however large it could be in practice.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in this matter he has the full support of all parties in the House, but will he make certain that where parents allow their children to stay at school well beyond the age for compulsory attendance, worth-while education and equipment will he available for them?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, Sir, that is our endeavour, and it is one of the reasons for the large increase in the teacher training colleges.

Blind Persons (Training)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Education what steps are being taken to train the blind for piano tuning.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Royal Normal College, near Shrewsbury, provides training for blind piano tuners, and examinations for the National Diploma have been conducted by the College of Teachers of the Blind for the past thirty years. There is no shortage of training facilities for suitable candidates.

Mrs. Slater: But is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the training at the Royal Normal College is adequate not only in the practical work of a piano tuner but also in business methods of which it is essential blind people should have some knowledge?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly look into that question now that the hon. Lady has raised it.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education to what extent his action in commenting on proposals made in the Burnham Committee, before they were officially submitted to him, is in accordance with precedent; and how far it indicates a new approach by the Government to the question of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In 1944, when the Committee had failed to agree, my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, who was then Minister of Education, tried to help the Committee by indicating the sort of proposals which he would be able to approve.

Mr. Stewart: Was it the case in this instance that the Committee had failed to agree? Is it not the position now that it has managed to agree on something which the Minister has said he will not approve? Is there any precedent for that?

Mr. Lloyd: At that time the Committee had not reached agreement and asked me for advice.

New School, Goodworth Clatford

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now fulfil the undertaking, given in his

letter of 20th May, 1959, to include the new school at Goodworth Clatford in the Hampshire County Council's programme for 1960–61.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This school been included in the Hampshire Local Education Authority's building programme for 1961–62. I am sorry that the wrong year was quoted in a recent letter to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Freeth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his apologies, may I ask whether he is aware that this is, quite frankly, not enough? The facilities for primary education in the villages of Goodworth and Upper Clatford are totally unsatisfactory, they have been so for the last fourteen years, and the rebuilding of this bombed school has been held up, admittedly by factors outside the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. Further, is he aware that hopes were raised by the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 20th May, and that they will now have been dashed? Will my right hon. Friend see if it is possible to include the school in the year which his hon. Friend gave in his letter of 20th May? Otherwise it will be difficult in these villages to maintain the confidence of the parents or teachers in my right hon. Friend and his Ministry.

Mr. Lloyd: The essential thing is that in practice the authority can go ahead with plans for the school, and although it has not been included in the programme for 1960–61, it has been included in the programme for 1961–2.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that he has placed the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) in an impossible position and bitterly disappointed the parents in this part of the county by informing the hon. Gentleman that the school was to be included in the 1960–61 programme at the time when he was informing the members of the Hampshire Education Committee that it was in the 1961–62 programme? Is not the only honourable thing to do to stand by his promise to his hon. Friend?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid it was less a mistake of policy than almost a typing mistake and I cannot alter the policy.

Mr. Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory


nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Higher Education (Grants)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education what steps he will take to promote among local education authorities greater uniformity of policy towards grants for higher education.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am not aware of any major differences in the policy of local education authorities. There are many other factors which affect the proportion of students selected for awards.

Mr. Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the booklet "Grants for Students", produced by the National Union of Students, which does not take quite so optimistic a view of the matter as his Answer would suggest?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, I want uniformity of policy, as I am sure does everybody on all sides of the House. Local authorities have co-operated very much in this direction, but I will certainly see what more can be done.

Teacher Training Colleges

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education how many men and women have been admitted to training colleges for next term; how many applicants have been refused places; and how many of those refused admission are above the minimum qualification of five subjects in the General Certificate of Education.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Education how many otherwise satisfactory candidates for entry to training colleges are likely to be rejected this year because of shortage of accommodation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Fifteen thousand students had been promised places on 1st April and the eventual number will be even higher. I shall be in a better position to answer the other parts of these Questions later in the year, and I will then write to the hon. Members.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that, while we could congratulate the training colleges on what they are doing to cram in students this year, it is now established that both this year and last year at least

1,000 over-average candidates were rejected by the training colleges; and, as this is a waste of potential which the Minister wants so badly, what will he do about it?

Mr. Lloyd: The figure I have given is already 1,000 higher than the corresponding figure last year, and we are expanding the colleges considerably.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that what matters is not only the number of those who get into the training colleges, which we agree is increasing, but the number of those who would have made competent teachers who are shut out of them year after year? Is there anything more he can do about that? Can he see any way of making a further increase in the size of the training colleges in time for this autumn? We lost 2,000 or 3,000 possible good teachers last year and we do not want to do that again.

Mr. Lloyd: As one hon. Gentleman said, the colleges are doing a great deal to make the maximum use of their present facilities.

Public Schools

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education how many boys from State schools during the current year have been enabled to enter public schools by means of financial aid from public funds under his control.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In March, 1958, local education authorities were paying the full fees for some 7,800 boys at independent schools and were assisting with the fees of about 7.000 others. I cannot however say how many of these boys were attending schools represented on the Head Masters' Conference.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it be possible for the Minister to get that information, because it is important to discriminate between those who are in the public schools of the Headmasters' Conference and those who are not? Secondly, could he say now what proportion or percentage of the total number of pupils in our public schools are drawn from State schools?

Mr. Lloyd: I could not do so without notice.

Latin (University Entrance Examinations)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education what advice he is giving to local education authorities with regard to changes in school curricula as a consequence of the abolition of Latin as a compulsory subject for the entrance examination to certain universities.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I understand that one of the two universities concerned has recently reached a decision on this matter, but I see no reason on that account to give advice to local education authorities.

Mr. Edelman: Whatever the universities decide, will the Minister give every encouragement to the study of Latin, which is at the heart of Western civilisation? Is it not one of the difficulties of the Russians that few of them learn Latin?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not want to embark on the broad question and I think it is important that, as Minister of Education, I should not air my personal views on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fishing Fleet (Catches)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to what extent catches of the fishing fleet have suffered since the Icelandic Government's attempt to extend their fishing limits.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): These catches fluctuate considerably owing to such factors as natural changes in fish stocks and variable weather. It is difficult, therefore, to give an accurate assessment of the extent to which catches have suffered as a result of the Icelandic Government's attempt to extend their fishing limits.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the appallingly bad weather last winter, the figures that are available show that British trawlermen are able and willing to carry on fishing up to the four-mile limit, and would he try again to persuade the Icelandic Government to enter into

a truce in this matter until it is considered by the Conference on the Law of the Sea next year?

Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir, I think that what my hon. Friend has said is sensible. I am only too willing, and so are Her Majesty's Government, to have talks with the Icelandic Government. We have put forward various proposals to them and we have shown in our recent agreement with the Danes over the Faroese Islands that we are willing to come to some sensible arrangement. Unfortunately, so far there has been no response from Iceland.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action, arising from the resolution passed by the recent International Veterinary Congress at Madrid, he is taking to maintain contact with other Governments interested in research into foot-and-mouth disease, with the object of ensuring that other countries, particularly the American countries, understand that the United Kingdom is not a foot-and-mouth country.

Mr. John Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend that we take every opportunity afforded by our close contact with other countries, particularly through international organisations concerned with veterinary matters, to make it clear to them that foot-and-mouth disease is not endemic in Great Britain.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend say what success he has had in the South American countries?

Mr. Hare: I can tell my hon. Friend that we are continually bringing to the attention of South American Governments the fact that foot-and-mouth is not endemic in this country. We have our own veterinary advisers in South America, and they have a particular role. We also make these points clear through ordinary diplomatic channels. It is a question of continuing to educate.

River Severn Banks (Erosion)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in putting into operation those


remedial measures for arresting the erosion of the banks of the River Severn towards which he announced in June. 1958, a grant under the Land Drainage Act, 1930.

Mr. John Hare: I am informed by the Severn River Board that it has encountered many obstacles in getting this work started, including the need to re-organise the arrangements for the supply of stone which will in future be carried to the sites by water. Satisfactory progress is now being made in this preliminary work and the main revetment work will begin shortly.

Bacon

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the present throughput of the British bacon curing industry; and how this compares with that for the previous three years.

Mr. John Hare: The weekly average production of bacon in Great Britain during April and May, 1959, was 3,160 tons compared with 3,180 tons, 2,920 tons and 2.960 tons in the corresponding periods in 1956, 1957 and 1958 respectively.

Sows

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the sow population for the latest available date; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for the previous three years.

Mr. John Hare: The most reliable figures I can give the hon. Gentleman are taken from the March quarterly census returns. These show that in March, 1959, there were 572,000 sows and gilts for breeding on agricultural holdings over 1 acre. The corresponding figures for the three previous years are:


1956
…
…
…
568,000


1957
…
…
…
584,000


1958
…
…
…
682,000

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figures show that the bacon factories are being used to only about 40 per cent. of their capacity? Is he aware that at the same time his Department estimates that in the present quarter there will be 300,000 fewer pigs for slaughter and there will be 400,000 fewer next quarter? What is he doing in these circumstances to allay the

anxieties of both the pig industry and the pig processing industry?

Mr. Hare: My Answer shows that in the period which I mentioned a larger amount of bacon was being produced from our factories than was produced last year or the year before that. It is true that with the decline in the breeding herd there will be a fall in the number of pigs available for market, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me when I say that there is no reason why curers should not obtain a fair share of the supply of pigs available. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government felt it necessary last year to reduce the standard price for pigs, because at that time there was a high and increasing level of pig population which was being achieved at a very high cost in subsidy and also by a large increase in imported feeding stuffs.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that for some considerable time the factories have been working under capacity and now they are threatened with a drop in supplies over the next six months? In view of this, will he at least consult the industry and perhaps consult the Pig Industry Development Authority as well?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The factories are working at 67 per cent. of the highest level which they have ever reached. As the industry knows, I am only too willing to see it at any time it wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Business Firms (Political and Propaganda Campaigns)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of doubts about the existing law in relation to the admissibility as tax-exempt expenditure of donations by business firms for purposes of political and other propaganda campaigns, he will introduce legislation to ensure that such donations are not admitted by the Board of Inland Revenue as admissible deductions in the computation of Income Tax and Profits Tax.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Expenditure by a trader is not allowable as a


deduction for tax purposes unless it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his trade. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend sees no reason for fresh legislation on the matter.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Director of the Institute of Directors has fairly and honestly stated that donations to his campaign are not deductible for tax purposes, but the National Union of Manufacturers has stated that donations to its campaign are deductible for tax purposes? In view of this confusion, will the Chancellor or the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to clarify the situation so that we know exactly where we are?

Mr. Simon: I do not think that there is any doubt as to what the law says in this matter or that it is fair and equitable. Different people may think that particular expenses fall one side or other of the line, but it is not for my right hon. Friend to disabuse them if they are under a misapprehension.

Mr. Wilson: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman state clearly that the Chancellor will take steps to ensure that such donations are not admissible for tax exemption? Is he aware that there is very great concern about the matter in the country? Will he say whether the unwillingness of the Government to act either administratively or legislatively has anything to do with their conception of party advantage?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. As I think I have told the House before, the position is that where there is any doubt the Inland Revenue inspector challenges the expenditure and leaves the taxpayer to make his case on appeal.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the political levy of the bosses' trade union collected by contracting in or contracting out?

Mr. Coldrick: Why should the law apply differently to the Co-operative movement compared with private trade? Every penny spent by the Co-operative movement in protecting itself against politicians is taxable, whereas when Messrs. Tate and Lyle and the steel companies proceed to use money to protect themselves, as they say, against the

Labour Party, it is not subject to taxation. Why should there be this distinction?

Mr. Simon: I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman, but it would be quite wrong for me to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is a fundamental rule upon which the House has always insisted that a Minister shall not discuss the affairs of any individual taxpayer.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my Question does not refer to individual taxpayers? Is he also aware that I have here the campaign document from the National Union of Manufacturers? Appealing for subscriptions for its campaign, it says:
Subscriptions to the National Union are allowed as a trade expense for taxation purposes.
If I pass this document to the hon. and learned Gentleman, will he take steps to disabuse the National Union of Manufacturers about this somewhat fraudulent indication to the people to whom it is appealing?

Mr. Simon: I need hardly say that I will carefully consider any material which the right hon. Gentleman draws to my attention. Nevertheless, it is not the function of my right hon. Friend to correct every misapprehension that may exist in the minds of any particular publicist.

Mr. Wilson: Is it a misapprehension?

Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman asks "Is it a misapprehension?" That is a matter for the law to state, not for me.

Societé D'Investissements Mobiliers

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he decided to sell Her Majesty's Government's holding in Societé D'Investissements Mobiliers by private tender; and how this was carried out.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 23rd June to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Grimond: Is this the general custom now, or was this a special case?

Mr. Erroll: There could hardly be said to be a general custom in matters of this sort. This case was decided on its merits.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Economic Secretary say whether the Government, before taking the step of selling the Suez investments, consulted the heirs of Disraeli?

Mr. Erroll: I could not answer that supplementary question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND AND NORTHERN RHODESIA (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the question of the answerability in Parliament of the responsible Ministers for events in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Ministers answer on matters for which they have responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies answers for all those matters in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland which are not the responsibility of the Federal Government. For the matters for which the Federal Government are responsible I would refer the hon. Member to Chapters 3 and 4 of the Federal Constitution, in particular Articles 29 and 36 and the Second Schedule.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I put this direct point to him for attention in the proper quarter? Will he convey it to the Prime Minister? Where the rights of British-protected persons in

Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia are jeopardised or directly infringed by acts of the Federal Government, will he ensure that the responsible Minister will be answerable in all circumstances to this House?

Mr. Butler: I could not give a general answer on those lines. There was an interchange with you, Mr. Speaker, on this matter, on which you gave a certain Ruling that Ministers answer only for what they are responsible for in this House. We have to try to interpret the constitution as we find it. I could not give any such general undertaking, but I will convey the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there appears to be a number of cases where doubt exists whether the Federation Government or the British Government are responsible, and whether there appears to be some overlapping of responsibility under existing legislation? Further, is he aware that there is much anxiety on this side of the House that Her Majesty's Government have done insufficient to protect the interests of those for whom they are responsible in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia? Is he also aware that we consider this to be a matter of great importance, and that we hope very much that the Government will change their present attitude?

Mr. Butler: Naturally, it has always been a feature of this House, not only this year, but in previous generations, that we want to look after our own citizens. I am giving an answer on the constitutional position as it has been interpreted in the Act to which I have drawn attention, and, in particular, the Second Schedule, which I hold here. As far as I can say, the Answer I have given is correct. I will certainly undertake to put the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend, but I could give no further answer today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 29TH JUNE—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.

Debate on the Condition of Private Industry, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.

Consideration of Motions to approve the Potatoes Orders; and the Fertilisers Scheme.

TUESDAY, 30TH JUNE—Report and Third Reading of the New Towns Bill; and of the National Galleries of Scotland Bill.

Committee and remaining stages of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

Consideration of Motions to approve the Parking Places (Extension Outside London) (No. 1) Order; and the Parking Places (Scotland) (No. 1) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 1ST JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the National Assistance Bill; and of the Education Bill.

Report and Third Reading of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY, 2ND JULY—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.

The second day's debate will then take place on a Motion to take note of the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland. (Cmnd. 706.)

Consideration of Motions to approve the Silo Subsidies Schemes (for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for Scotland); the Agricultural Lime Schemes; and the Agriculture (Stationary Machinery) Regulations.

FRIDAY, 3RD JULY—Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Further progress will be made with the Fire Services Bill [Lords].

Second Reading of the Weeds Bill [Lords]; and of the Dog Licences Bill [Lords], both of which are consolidation Measures.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it be in order to say that that seems to be rather a "dog's breakfast"?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether the Government intend to find time for a debate on foreign affairs before the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference resumes on 13th July? Secondly, can he now say when the Devlin Commission is likely to report, and how soon afterwards the Report will it be published?

Mr. Butler: We have understood that it would be the desire of the Opposition, and, I think, of the House, that a debate on foreign affairs should take place, and I think that this will probably take place in the week after that for which I have just announced the business. Perhaps we could arrange through the usual channels the day chosen and also the time, and whether that will be provided by the Opposition or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May we not, at least, discuss that? I think that it is quite reasonable.
I cannot tell the House what the date of publication of the Report of the Devlin Commission will be. As I said in my last answer on this matter, it is primarily for the Commission. It is our wish that it should be published before the House rises, and we trust that that will be so. If so, I should wish to have a discussion on it.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report is likely to be finished?

Mr. Butler: No, I could not give an exact date. We hope that it will be finished some time in the coming month.

Sir G. Nicholson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider giving time for a debate on the Treasury control of expenditure? He will recollect that the Select Committee on Estimates reported on the matter last summer, and that the Government's answer to that came out on Tuesday of this week. May I also ask him to bear in mind that the control of expenditure


is one of the primary duties of this House, and that this is the first time that a connected study of the whole question has been undertaken, and that a debate is certainly due and required?

Mr. Butler: I do not underestimate the importance of the subject, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, a Treasury statement has been made on this matter. However, I see considerable difficulty in finding a day for a discussion before we rise.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is it not the Government's intention to give the House an early opportunity of debating our relations with the Common Market countries in Europe, because very many Members on both sides are becoming rather uneasy about the apparent tendencies to divide Europe into two competitive camps, rather than making further efforts to get together?

Mr. Butler: In answer to business questions, I would not wish to go into policy, except that I trust that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that score, at any rate in the ultimate, will not be realised. I think that is not our objective. I do not think that the conversations have reached a stage yet when we could usefully have a debate. However, if we may remain in contact, we will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. P. Williams: May I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on Treasury control? This is a critical matter which has not been debated in the House before, as far as I know. Is he aware that, if he can find some way, perhaps through the co-operation of the Opposition, to have a debate on this matter, it will be worth while?

Mr. Butler: The choice of business on Supply Days is a matter for the Opposition, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. At this stage of the Session, it would not be right of me to hold out hopes which it is difficult to fulfil, particularly as we have undertaken to find a day for a debate on procedure, which we had undertaken to do before

this request was made. Therefore, it will be very difficult.

Mr. P. Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has given any thought to the possibility of a debate on the forthcoming Commonwealth Education Conference, to be opened on 15th July, inasmuch as the subject matter is of great interest both to us in this House and throughout the Commonwealth, and it might well be useful to air opinions and ideas therein?

Mr. Butler: I admire the apt English of my hon. Friend, but I should find it difficult to find a day.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the publication of the British Transport Commission's Annual Report and Accounts today, and their very serious implications, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that we shall have a debate—and, if so, when—on its affairs, particularly on the railways, before the Recess?

Mr. Butler: I could not give an undertaking on that, although I realise the importance of the matter.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware of the disastrous condition into which the mining industry is getting at present? Is he aware that inland consumption has gone down by 8 million tons in 22 weeks, and of the national stoppage in Scotland? Does he not think that it is time that the Government put their mind to the question of organising help for the mining industry and that we had a proper discussion of the whole situation?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's question relates to finding time. It will be very difficult so to do, though no doubt his question has come to the attention of the Opposition Front Bench.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60

Navy Estimates, 1959–60

VOTE 12. ADMIRALTY OFFICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,359,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960.

Orders of the Day — MESSRS. S. G. BROWN LTD.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Today, we are asking the Committee to discuss the Government's policy towards the firm of Messrs. S. G. Brown Ltd., of Watford. At first glance, this may appear to be a matter of local or possibly secondary importance. On the contrary, we believe that the Government's decision in this matter is of major significance, and we attach the greatest importance to this debate.
The Committee will pardon me if I give a little of the history of S. G. Brown, since that is necessary to a discussion of Government policy. It may well be that as the story unfolds the Committee would agree that it is necessary to decide on the matter in the full knowledge of all that is now involved.
In pre-war days, the firm of S. G. Brown Ltd. was a small, struggling firm at Acton. It was making a gyro-compass invented by the late Mr. S. G. Brown, who was a very able inventor and engineer, although perhaps not so successful as a businessman. So very unsatisfactory was the performance of this firm during the war, when it was failing the nation in what has been described as our hour of greatest need, that, acting under one of the Defence Regulations then in force, the Admiralty took it over.
At that time, both Mr. and Mrs. Brown were connected with the firm, Mrs. Brown looking after the business side. They attempted to get the workpeople concerned to side with them against the Admiralty when the Admiralty attempted to take over the administration. Indeed, they called meetings of the employees and tried to influence them against the Admiralty controller.
The workers refused point-blank to fall for those blandishments and met the controller and assured him that they would do everything in their power to ensure maximum production of a quality job meet to the needs of the nation in those difficult days.
Invoking part of those same Defence Regulations, as they were perfectly entitled to do, Mr. and Mrs. Brown insisted upon the Admiralty buying them out. That is something which must be remembered. Subsequently, the Admiralty bought the firm's issued share capital of £55,750. It is of some importance to note that, according to the evidence of Sir John Lang to the Committee on Public Accounts, in 1949, it was the desire of the firm that it should be taken over, because it shows that in the initiation of this business it was not the Admiralty which instigated matters in what could be described as the financial take-over, but the firm itself.
At the end of the war, the Labour Government were pressed by the workers of the firm not to relinquish control. They said that they believed that, with their co-operation and that of the management, it could be made into a worth-while concern for the nation. Some of us had representations to make on the subject, and I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was busy in this connection. My noble Friend, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough who was then at the Admiralty, finally agreed, with the proviso that the firm must not become a liability on the Department, saying that if that could be ensured, there was no reason why it should not remain in the Admiralty's control.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), on 16th June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the production of the firm was no longer vital to the Admiralty, but I point out that at


the time it was decided to retain it it was known that Government orders were unlikely to represent a large proportion of the firm's activities. Indeed, paragraph 30 of the Navy Appropriation Account for 1956–57 says:
Although Government orders were unlikely to represent a large proportion of its peacetime activities, the Admiralty decided after the war to retain ownership of the company"—
and I stress this—
to preserve its value as war potential.
In his reply of that date, the Chancellor suggested that it was no longer necessary for the Admiralty to maintain control. He said that the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that it was no longer of importance that it should do so.
Is it suggested that gyroscopic instruments capable of use in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, supersonic aircraft, surface aircraft and submarines, land and amphibious vehicles are no longer important as war potential? Are we to be asked to believe that in this age of the intercontinental ballistic missile, and new developments in submarine warfare and planes capable of supersonic speed, the gyro itself is no longer to be considered necessary as war potential?
In any event, supposing that the Admiralty felt that it no longer wished to retain control, why was it not handed over to the Ministry of Supply? The Ministry of Supply is the central Department in all these matters. Perhaps the Civil Lord will tell us whether there were any discussions on that point in Government circles.
I have with me an announcement by S. G. Brown Ltd., of August, 1958, saying:
Five years ago we produced, in collaboration with the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, the Brown Master Reference Gyro Mark I.
Today our Master Reference Gyro is in full production. It is fitted, as standard equipment, in all the latest British fighter and very high speed research aircraft. These five different types of aircraft all have supersonic capabilities.
We are incorporating the valuable experience we have gained from the successful production of our Mark I Master Reference Gyro into the development of our Mark II model. This instrument is to be smaller, lighter and yet more accurate.
Vital developments have taken place in collaboration with other essential defence

establishments, especially the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at Farnborough. These developments are the result of public money and research not only in Brown's, but far outside the scope of the firm.
The gyro is now fitted in all the latest types of British fighters and high-speed research aircraft, and these different types of aircraft have supersonic capabilities. Surely this is the very centre of our future defence organisation. Yet, as we heard the other day, the Chancellor invites us to believe that its development is no longer in the national interest. The Chancellor said that the onus of proof must be that it is required in the national interest. I wonder whether I have proved to the Committee that it is. If the party opposite believes that it is not, let it go on the hustings and say that it is not, but we insist that it is.
When the Admiralty decided to retain the firm three directors were appointed to run the company on commercial lines. As I understand, one director was an assistant secretary to the Admiralty. I suppose that that unfortunate gentleman now qualifies as one of the quislings which the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance once told us was the right designation for those who go to manage nationalised industries.
In 1948, the firm moved from its premises in Acton to much larger and better premises in Watford. I will let my hon. Friends into a secret. The party opposite has debated the position. It did so last Tuesday night. There were so many broken heads that undoubtedly the party opposite is not capable of turning up at full strength to debate this today. While all the Press was looking round the Labour Party meeting for non-existent splits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it missed the split in the Conservative Party, which was as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Under the stimulus of public enterprise the firm grew and prospered. More share capital was provided by the Admiralty, which also advanced £165,000, secured by a debenture, for acquiring the new premises to which I have referred. Because of the rapidly increasing turnover the company needed more cash, and the Treasury agreed to the company obtaining accommodation from its bankers. Since then the range


of the company's products has increased and the financing of them, which I am not sure is altogether satisfactory, has been a mixture of public money and bank overdraft.
The net result is that from its miserable start there are now 500,000 £1 issued shares, all held by the Admiralty. For the past decade the firm has been making profits, which I understand is the Tory test of efficiency. I will now quote the gross trading profits before deductions and depreciations. They start in 1949 at the modest figure of £56,000. By 1951, it was £82,000. By 1953, it was £162,000. By 1954, it was £216,000. By 1956, it was £171,000. By 1957, it was £211,000. By 1958, it was £180,000. I suggest that by those figures the firm passes the test which Toryism applies to these matters.
I realise that some of the things that I am saying are not palatable to hon. Members opposite.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is placing the Committee in a position to come to a decision. He is not quoting what would normally be regarded as the proper profits. He must do that.

Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I was coming to specific instances of this. I said that the figures I was quoting were gross profits before depreciation. We are not trying to do any confidence tricks. We exist on policy, not tricks.
The Admiralty has a fixed and deliberate policy about dividends. This was raised at the Committee of Public Accounts by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). I compliment the Admiralty for limiting the dividend to 5 per cent. It has resulted in more of the profits being put back into the industry, to the advantage of the firm. I do not know what effect this will have if we get to the point where take-over bids can be made.
I cannot take up all the time available, so I advise the Committee to read the evidence and the answers to questions given to the Committee of Public Accounts on 4th April, 1957. At the meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Leith was told that the figure of 5 per

cent. had been deliberately fixed. He was told this by Sir John Lang. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) decided that things were not quite to his liking, and asked:
Did you consider going into the market for this extra money and then selling some of the equity?
The answer was:
It is Government policy, and this was decided some years ago, that to such extent as this company does require additional capital it should be supplied through public funds and not through the market.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) was worried about this and said:
The difficulty is that we have a company which is competitive and is competing and is isolating itself from all the hazards and alarms that affect the normal competitive business which is in the same sort of trade …

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Odhams Press.

Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fair to his hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who said some very important things.
The hon. Member for Dover also asked:
Sir John, If you were the subject of a take-over bid and the take-over bid was substantially in advance of the market figure for your shares, would you be inclined to take it?
Here we have the genesis of what we are now seeing as Government policy. We know that it always goes down badly with hon. Members opposite if there is a firm which is capable of making a profit and that profit is not going into the pockets of private enterprise.
I now give the net figures. In 1956, on a capital of half a million pounds the net profit was £126,000 before tax. When the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested that that was not a very high profit, Sir John said he thought that a £126,000 profit on £½ million capital was not bad. I think that was a most reasonable attitude. I understand that on 31st March, 1958, the total assets of the company were valued at £1,219,000. The bank overdraft had risen to £270,000, a rise recorded in the Navy Appropriation Account, 1957–58, as being caused by modernisation and development resulting in increases of capital tied up in


stock and work in progress. It was against this background of the gradual success of a nationalised concern that, on 8th June, a notice appeared in the works as follows:
I am directed by the Secretary of the Admiralty, Sir John Lang, … to inform all employees that the Admiralty, acting on behalf of H.M. Government—the sole proprietors of S. G. Brown Limited—is making known its intention of seeking to dispose of its entire interest in the Company. I am also authorised by Sir John Lang to state that the Admiralty being fully mindful of the welfare of the staff and workpeople hope it will be possible for the business to be kept as a going concern"—
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will notice that the words are kept as a going concern"—
and not disintegrated so that the high precision manufacturing capacity represented by the Company is maintained.
Those are very nice sentiments, but I suggest to the Government that they are not worth the paper they are written on. In what way does a seller determine the future of a firm in which he no longer has an interest? How is it possible, at any time, to ensure that once an asset is disposed of it will continue in the way in which those who originally bought it operated it?
I want to ask the Government one or two questions. First, who are the bidders for this firm?

Mr. Nabarro: There are 42.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member says that there are 42, thereby showing what a tremendous asset it is. Is it to be an open transaction, for all to take part in?

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Member will not show too much anxiety or the price will go up.
I want to read another publication of the firm's. It deals with the Arma Brown gyroscope, and in a bracket at the bottom it says:
The Arma Brown Gyroscope has behind it not only fifty years of experience by Brown, but also full resources of the Arma Division of the American Bosch Arma Corporation.
Has the Bosch Arma Corporation any further interest in the affairs of S. G. Brown? It seems peculiar, with the tie-up of the full resources of the Arma division of the American Bosch Arma

Corporation, that that corporation is now agreeable to this firm becoming the property of people who may well be competitors, but who have done nothing in the development of this very successful enterprise. Could we be told whether the Bosch Arma firm is interested in the future of this company?
We know what great competition that company has from Sperry's. Perhaps Sperry's are interested. Can we be told whether there is any danger of a substantial portion, or the whole, of this firm passing into the hands of American employers?
That is the background and history of the development of this firm. We are considering the question of the selling of this successful business in a soulless era of take-over bids, and wild Stock Exchange gambles directed to the one end of using industry for profit-snatching. All pride of accomplishment in the creation of useful and successful businesses has apparently gone. When I read about the things going on in the Stock Exchange I often wonder what effect they will have upon those employees who have given service far beyond that for which they are being paid—people who have actively co-operated with the managements of their firms and have felt that this was part of their existence, and now find themselves sold down the river to some kind of takeover bidder.
This will produce a cynicism among the people, who will have no interest in their industries. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can laugh, but I speak with some experience of this matter. I tell them that if they are going to break down the cooperation which now exists in the factories between the trade unions and the employers, British industry cannot survive in this period.
From the moment my noble Friend, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, made his decision to retain this firm, the workers, conscious that they had incurred great responsibilities—because they were instrumental in asking that the firm should be retained—gave unqualified support and constructive co-operation to the management. There has been exemplary teamwork, with the shop stewards' committee helping wholeheartedly in the solution of production problems and other difficulties. To its


credit, the management has met them half-way. It has reciprocated and, in consequence, by any test one wishes to apply the venture has been an outstanding, success. As one of the shop stewards said to me, speaking of his workmates, "This is our firm and we want to see it prosper".
I should like to give the Committee a few examples of the co-operation which has existed. In 1947, when the firm was struggling, the management called the shop stewards to a meeting and showed them many components which, they said, were costing the firm too much to produce. The management said, "These are mere examples. We could show you thousands more". The shop stewards' committee suggested and negotiated a timing agreement.
Those hon. Members who know something about engineering know that, as a rule, workers detest timing agreements. On many occasions I have told employers who have produced stop-watches, "Those are all right for checking whippets, but not engineers". But the shop stewards, on behalf of the workpeople, negotiated a timing agreement in 1947 which, with very little alteration, is still in existence.
There was a further occasion, about 1950, when the management had great difficulty in obtaining work. It tendered for a job called the bomb carrier, at very competitive rates, and was concerned because, after getting the contract, it was in danger of losing money on it. The shop stewards were consulted and agreed that it was an occasion for a very special effort. A request was made that all estimated times of operations were to be put on the back of the drawings. The managing director was invited by the shop stewards to address a meeting of their members and to explain the position, and the shop stewards asked their members to support the management in this job and to do all in their power to meet, or lower, the estimated times.
I wonder whether the Committee understands the risks that the shop stewards took in making such a recommendation. I have sometimes tried such a thing myself, and the kindest things I was called were "management stooge" or "lick-spittle". That is the sort of thing that those men were prepared to put up with, because they felt that they were part of

the organisation, and they wanted to make it a success.
Strikes? There has never been one. Since the day this experiment began there has never been a vestige of a strike from anyone. Do the Government really want to destroy such an example, and produce bitterness and cynicism in place of harmony? I challenge them to put in their friend, Mr. Hurry, and let him have a poll among the 1,000 workers on the straight question, "Do you wish to stay in the public section or be sold out to private enterprise?"
Last night, at the annual meeting of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which, I remind the Committee, represents over 3 million people, this resolution was passed:
This Confederation annual meeting, aware of the policy of the Government in denationalising profitable sections of industry, deprecates the latest example denoted by the intention of the Admiralty to sell the nationally-owned precision instrument manufacturing firm of S. G. Brown's, of Watford, to private interests. This act of the Admiralty represents a gross betrayal of the co-operation and loyalty so generously volunteered by the workers employed and which has contributed so much to the development of a profitable undertaking. We demand that this firm should be withdrawn from sale and retained as a valuable national asset to the Admiralty.
I now turn to the astounding performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time on 16th June. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It is surprising that the Chancellor has not come to the Committee today. He has taken some responsibility in this matter. He answered a Question on the 16th and I wanted to put a few points to him about it. Incidentally, I tabled the Question for answer by the Prime Minister, who slid it along—"over to you"—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I asked
upon what criteria Her Majesty's Government base decisions to sell firms such as Messrs. S. G. Brown, Limited, which are owned by Government Departments.
I received the reply:
There are very few such cases, but where a decision is called for, the Government take into account a wide range of circumstances, principally how the national interest might be affected, but also normal commercial considerations …
It should be a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer who points out the difference between national and commercial considerations, but that is a minor point.
In a supplementary question, I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that the firm was now making profits, was worth £1¼million, was producing a fine gyroscope, one of the best in the world, and so on. He replied:
The facts that the hon. Member has given do not justify the company, however successful, necessarily being retained in public ownership.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who, obviously, could not believe his own ears when he heard such a thing, repeated the point and said:
Will he say whether he feels that it is right that an asset of the State which is important to our exports and to State services and is highly profitable to the State should be handed over?
The Chancellor replied:
I certainly do not think that because a firm is expanding or well managed that justifies it remaining in public ownership.
In my fourteen years in the House of Commons, I do not believe that I have ever heard an answer which so reeked of political bias as that. It really is a fantastic situation when we are told that success of this sort does not ensure continuity of nationalisation.
If that was a shock, however, we had worse to come. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Chancellor:
Is he saying that when a firm becomes profitable under public enterprise the benefits must be handed over to private enterprise?
The reply was:
No. What I am saying is that to justify a firm remaining in public ownership the onus of proof must be that it is required in the national interest and that the firm will prosper under public ownership but would not prosper under private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 243–4.]
We note that the Chancellor is not here today.
The meaning of that is that we now have to prove not only that public ownership has been a success, but that private enterprise would fail. In a country which calls itself a democracy, such a position is positively disgusting and completely unacceptable to us. If the Chancellor were here, I would put to him the logic of that theory concerning S. G. Brown Ltd. I have related the history of the firm. I suggest that in

recounting that history, I have met the grotesquely unfair demand of the Chancellor that I should prove, first, that nationalisation has succeeded, and secondly, that private enterprise failed. That, in short, is the precise meaning of the history of S. G. Brown Ltd. Despite that proof, the Chancellor still proposes to go ahead and denationalise the firm.
I ask the Committee and the country: who are the doctrinaires? Political and industrial Toryism has stood the English language on its head, for the Tories pursue this policy in what they are pleased to describe as a battle against the doctrinaires. Having laid down this diktat, however, they refuse to accept the results of it. I hesitate to say this in the Chancellor's absence—

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: He should be here.

Mr. Lee: —but the question of personal honour as well as political theory becomes involved.
Let us be quite clear about this. On Tuesday of last week, the most disgraceful set of conditions ever laid down was put to us: that we must prove not only that public ownership is a success, but that private enterprise would fail. My contention is that I have proved just that. That is the history of S. G. Brown Ltd., in spite of which the Government now propose to go ahead and to run away even from the disgraceful diktat which they have laid down. I say that personal honour is involved when that stage is reached.
Let us look at the broader aspects of this policy. We have recently had a report from the Transport Commission which is disturbing. Let us remember, however, that the railways, which, before and during the war, cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, had to be taken over by the State because of the failure of private enterprise. The task of the Transport Commission has been made harder by the credit squeeze, which caused a fall in the movement of steel and coal and, in consequence, of traffic receipts.
The Transport Commission and the trade unions, however, are convinced that with hard work, sacrifices and a different type of Government from the one we have today, they can still make the railways pay. If they succeed in turning


the railways into a profitable concern, are we to expect the application of this theory? If so, the price of success is elimination. Is this the incentive to co-operation in industry between employers and workers, for which the Minister of Labour so rightly asks? This is not responsible government. It is official vandalism.
As we now know that the price to be paid by nationalised industry for daring to make profits is denationalisation, it follows that it is only those industries which, though essential to the national economy, can never hope to make profits which will remain in the public sector. We have already seen the profitable parts of steel and road transport—and now S. G. Brown Ltd.—returned to the private sector for no other reason than that. Instead of it being the case, as the steel bosses and the Institute of Directors are now asserting, that the industries in the public sector fail to make profits because they are nationalised, the fact is that they remain nationalised only because they fail to make profits.
Having achieved this delightfully convenient subdivision of industry, Government supporters then argue that lack of profit proves the failure of the theory of public ownership. May I put the other side of the argument? The only nationalised industry which has ever received public money is civil aviation. If the failure to make profit without the use of public money is proof of the failure in a nationalised industry it must also be a proof of failure in private industry.
Yet the Daily Telegraph of Friday, 19th June, in a leading article, reminded us of the position of a number of firms in the aircraft industry. It said:
In our country new urgency is obviously imported into the Government's consideration of how to help our production of these enormously expensive new machines. Indeed, outside the United States and Russia, production must be beyond the financial, though not the technical, resources of all national aircraft industries—even of our own, unless assisted by the Government.
Is this proof of the failure of private enterprise? Are we to have a Bill for the nationalisation of the aircraft industry? The fact is that the Government will simply step up the already lavish payments of public money to private enterprise.
The Daily Telegraph is getting really annoyed. I have another quotation, for the benefit of Government supporters, of what this newspaper says. On 12th May, 1959, it said:
In the queue for State aid at the moment stand the following vast private undertakings: the entire cotton industry; Colville's steel works; the Cunard line; the de Havilland Aircraft Company; the shipyards which hope to build the first atom-powered merchant ships. There may be others unknown to me: experienced spongers often prefer to work in private.
This importunity seems to me as unwise as it is unseemly.
It is in effect to declare, as the Socialists declare, that the present free economic system will not work. Perhaps it will not; but the independence of these great concerns will not survive its passing.
From State aid to State control is but a step, and a most natural and legitimate"—
"legitimate", remember that—
step at that. Cash and strings go naturally together; he who pays the piper legitimately calls the tune.
If these great concerns really want to be nationalised, why don't they openly say so? If not, they had better keep quiet and put their begging bowls away.
It may well be that the present campaign against public ownership and against public enterprise is intended to divert from the public gaze that sort of activity and Goebbels techniques of that kind; if the big lie is stated often enough people may well believe that it is true.
I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th May:
the total amount of grants, subsidies and other financial assistance provided by the Government during the current financial year to privately-owned industry, including agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 55.]
The reply received from the Financial Secretary showed that £263·1 million was the total of that financial assistance. With much of this assistance we would agree. Some of it goes to agriculture and some of it is for the Development Areas.
I am not making the point that we disagree with all this, but that those who receive this sort of money are not the ones who should make a campaign about the failure of nationalised industries. It would be most interesting to have an equation made of the amount of public money being poured into private industry and the amount which private industry


is expending on anti-nationalisation campaigns. I am sure that we should find that the campaign is being financed by public subscription in other forms as well.
The public forms of industry, such as S. G. Brown and the profitable parts of the steel and road transport industries, are handed back to private hands while the unprofitable parts of private industry are maintained by ever-increasing doles of public money. Trade unions and their members in such firms as S. G. Brown have given everything they possess in constructive co-operation to build up an enterprise of great value to the nation. They have received for their pains a contemptible and squalid stab in the back. The nation cannot survive in the world into which we are moving on this sort of chicanery.
Unless we can get an increase of cooperation between employers and employed, which is the only basis upon which we can live, then British industry will wither and our living standards in Britain will decline. Because we want a square deal in cases where public enterprise has been a great success we deplore the anarchy of this move and we invite the Committee to register its disapproval of it.

4.27 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): We have had a fine, pugnacious, knock-about—[An HON. MEMBER: "Knock-out."]—take-over-bid speech of a kind that I would be delighted to make in my own constituency. Whether the hon. Gentleman is wise, on such a hot afternoon as this, to indulge in pyrotechnics of this kind I do not know. One thing I know is that after the smoke and the sound have cleared away—[An HON. MEMBER: "You will have had a rocket."] It will turn out that the rocket and the ammunition used by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) have been blank and that the Admiralty's case is as strong as ever.
I intend to speak in a very much quieter and calmer way than the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] If I am a little duller, I apologise to the Committee. The plain fact is—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish to listen to me, that is their business. We

listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Newton, and I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to a quiet and calm statement of the Admiralty's case.
I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman is describing briefly the history of the company and its association with the Admiralty. He was correct in saying that the firm of S. G. Brown was established in 1933 for the manufacture of scientific instruments and that its best known product was the gyroscopic compass. In addition, it manufactured other types of scientific instruments though it did so on a fairly small scale.
When the war started, in order to increase the company's productive capacity, the Admiralty financed an extension to the factory which the company ran on the Admiralty's behalf. By 1940, relations between the company and the Admiralty had become strained. The hon. Member suggested that the reason for this was inefficiency on the part of the company. I am sorry to have to tell him that he is wrong. The reason for the deterioration in the relations between the company and the Admiralty was a conflict over war-time priorities and the unwillingness of the company to carry out the Admiralty's wishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is not the same thing as inefficiency. It was a failure to respond to what the Admiralty thought was the right degree of priority and that is not the same as inefficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is worse."]
The hon. Member stated that the company had been inefficient. I am simply pointing out that the Admiralty's action was not due to inefficiency. As a result of this conflict, the Admiralty decided to assume control of the company under Defence Regulations. A controller was appointed and the directors, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, were removed.

Miss Jennie Lee: This is private enterprise at work.

Mr. Galbraith: At this time the ownership of the company had not changed. Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who were the sole owners, asserted their rights under the Defence Regulations and asked the Admiralty, it having taken control of the company, to buy the shares. This the Admiralty did in 1941. Like the hon. Member, I wish particularly to draw the


attention of the Committee to this fact, because it shows that the acquisition of these shares was not on the initiative of the Admiralty but was something asked for by the Browns under the terms of a Defence Regulation. I have been asked what the consequence of that was. The consequence of that, as I see it, was that there was no deliberate intention or wish on the part of the Admiralty to acquire ownership of the company. It just happened it was not something which was intended.
When the war was over, the policy regarding S. G. Brown was reviewed by the party opposite, which decided—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen, because this is an important point. When the war was over, the policy regarding S. G. Brown was reviewed by the party opposite, which decided to retain the company in private ownership. What is interesting about this is that it was contrary to the general policy of hon. Members opposite at that time, which was to return to private ownership companies which had been acquired under the Defence Regulations.
An exception was made in the case of S. G. Brown.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Was this the only exception?"]—It was the only exception so far as the Admiralty was concerned, anyway. There may have been one or two other companies which were returned, but the main thing done at that time was to return them to private ownership. An exception was made in the case of S. G. Brown. The Admiralty had three firms and returned two of them. The exception in the case of S. G. Brown was because its war potential as a manufacturer of high precision instruments was of great value to the Admiralty.
For some time after this, the reason for retaining the firm based on the need for war potential remained valid, but in recent years the advent of the nuclear weapon has altered thinking about the nature of a future war and the need to preserve a war potential. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the crux of the argument. Nowhere are we now retaining capacity because we might require it in wartime. Thus, the disposal of S. G. Brown is only another aspect of the change in defence policy which has already led, for example, to a run-down in the size of the Reserve Fleet and the

consequentially reduced requirements for dockyard capacity, of which the Committee is well aware.
I do not think that the hon. Member has really appreciated this argument about war potential. Of course, we require some of the products of this firm in the same way as we require the products of other similar firms, but with regard to war potential the position now is that we no longer believe that in a future war we should be able to build up the production of warlike material above the peacetime level and, in consequence, there is now no defence justification for the Admiralty to retain control of S. G. Brown, although, of course, the Admiralty will continue to buy any products from it in the same way as it does from other similar companies.
I should now like to turn to examine the finances of the company, to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, could he say what is the extent of Admiralty contracts? Would he confirm, for example, that in 1958 the total value of output of this company was £1,800,000—is the aggregation of its sales—and what the Admiralty bought from it was £60,000, or only 3 per cent., of the output?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but I think that the amount done on Admiralty account is 18 per cent.

Mr. Nabarro: This is a very important point. I want to be quite precise about it. In 1958, the value of this company's sales was £1,800,000. In that year the value of Admiralty contracts placed with the firm—there would be a time lag between the two—was £60,000. [Interruption.] I shall give the following year. In 1959, that is, for the twelve months to 31st March last, the output of the firm was £1,600,000 and Admiralty contracts placed amounted to £55,000, so it was 3 per cent. These figures were given me by the Admiralty in answer to my Question.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Bowles, could not the two hon. Members settle their rows privately in the 1922 Committee?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): I should point out to the Committee that this debate is to be a short


one. Although it is a very exciting one, perhaps hon. Members may observe a little more silence.

Mr. Galbraith: Thank you very much, Mr. Bowles.
I wish to turn to examine the finances of the company, because the financial situation reinforces the basic defence arguments in favour of disposing of the company. When the company was formed in 1933, it had a capital of £30,000. The Admiralty, as I have explained, had to purchase these shares in 1941. The price, following an independent valuation, was £55,750. After the war, when it had been decided to retain the company, its capital structure was reorganised. The authorised capital was raised from £30,000 to £250,000 and the Admiralty took up £180,000 of this at par to enable the company to purchase from the Admiralty the plant and equipment which the Admiralty had provided during the war.
Shortly after this, the firm moved from its old factory at Acton to new and larger premises at Watford. This move was financed by a debenture of £165,000, provided by the Admiralty, of which £60,500 is still outstanding. After this move, and the financial reorganisation associated with it, it was hoped that the company would be able to stand upon its own feet and finance itself from its own resources. Unfortunately, in spite of the very modest dividend of 5 per cent. which the company has paid, this has not been possible.

Mr. F. Lee: Admiralty policy.

Mr. Galbraith: It may be Admiralty policy, but I am describing what that policy has produced. Although there was a very small dividend and, therefore, most of the money was left in the company, the company has, in fact, not been able to finance its own development.

Mr. Lee: Why?

Mr. Galbraith: In 1956, further reconstruction became necessary, and the authorised capital was raised from £250,000 to £500,000, £200,000 of this representing capitalisation of reserves. At the same time, the Admiralty produced another £250,000 in cash by taking up a further 90,000 shares at par and providing an unsecured loan of £160,000 at 5 per cent., repayable over ten years, starting in 1961.
In spite of this new injection of capital, the company's liquid position has continued to deteriorate and its overdraft has increased to such an extent that in this year's Navy Estimates we have had to make provision for a further £250,000. The Committee will thus see that since the start of the war a net total of £546,000 has been provided for the company from Navy Votes, with another £250,00 in hand for this year.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us now what are the assets of the firm?

Mr. Galbraith: I am coming to that in due course.
I do not want the Committee to think that these persistent financial difficulties are necessarily a sign of failure or inefficiency on the part of the firm. Many companies engaged in modern engineering find themselves in much the same position and require heavy capital investment if they are to develop their potentialities and remain competitive.
An example of the sort of development requiring capital, which S. G. Brown has recently undertaken, is an increase in the amount of air conditioned and temperature-controlled space now required for very high precision manufacture. If our past experience is anything to go by, further development like this will continue to be necessary.
In addition, the increased complexity of the article produced and the time taken on the job means that more and more money is tied up in the process of manufacture and, therefore, the demand for fresh capital is likely to be a continuing feature of the operations of the company for some years to come.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is about to make an effort to sell this asset. I must say that I do not think much of his sales talk.

Mr. Galbraith: Let us take one step at a time. At the moment, I am trying to persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite to see this matter in its proper perspective.
Of course, I admit that a valuable asset is created in the process, both in the high skill of the labour force and the complexity of the plant. As a Service Department, however, the Admiralty is


not interested in building up assets, however valuable they may be, unless they are essential to its task of running and maintaining the Navy. The primary interest of the Admiralty is to secure year to year—and I emphasise year to year, because that is the way Government finance is run—the largest possible resources for direct spending on the Navy, and while it is responsible for the development of this company it cannot do this.
Further, the dividend represents a return of just over 2½ per cent. on the equity and, unfortunately, this situation seems likely to continue for some time. Meanwhile, as I have explained, the capacity of S. G. Brown has ceased to be essential to the Navy for war purposes. Consequently, the Admiralty's Departmental interest is to realise this asset rather than keep it for the sake of possible future returns at the cost of considerable immediate and continuing capital expenditure.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman may have established his case for the Admiralty—I do not know—but is he not speaking for the Government?

Mr. Galbraith: Of course I am, but I must first start by explaining the Admiralty's interest or, rather, lack of interest. In due course, the rest will perhaps become clear to the right hon. Gentleman if, instead of interrupting so much, he will listen to what I have to say. This difficulty—the feeling that if we keep this firm we are responsible for its future development—explains the reluctance of the Admiralty to retain the ownership of the firm. We no longer require the firm's war potential and we therefore do not wish to face the financial responsibilities involved in developing the company.

Sir Peter Agnew: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say from the figures that he gave on the return on the equity that the Government, representing the public, would do better if they took out the money which is invested in this company and put it into Dalton's?

Mr. Galbraith: All I am saying—I am drawing no conclusions—is that the return on the equity is 2½ per cent. I think that this reluctance of the Admiralty may seem strange when it is well known—

Mr. John Diamond: It is quite inaccurate.

Mr. Galbraith: I must get on; there is a very short debate.

Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a company which has distributed dividends of 5 per cent. and given a bonus issue of £250,000 has declared a dividend of only 2½ per cent.?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has the facts quite wrong. There was no bonus issue of £250,000.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman said so.

Mr. Galbraith: No; there was a capitalisation of reserves. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may be an accountant, but I happen to be the son, the grandson and the great grandson of an accountant, and I prefer my interpretation to his. I am talking at the moment about what may seem to be a strange reluctance on the part of the Admiralty—

Mr. John McCann: To tell the truth.

Mr. Galbraith: I am busy trying to tell the truth. The trouble is that hon. Members opposite do not want to listen to it.
This reluctance on the part of the Admiralty may seem strange when it is known that the Admiralty is one of the oldest production Departments and is itself engaged on work somewhat similar to that done by S. G. Brown, for example, at the compass factory at Slough and the torpedo factory at Alexandria, in Dunbartonshire, but these are Admiralty establishments employing Admiralty staff, where the Admiralty is producing for its own use. With S. G. Brown the position is the reverse. It is run on commercial lines, and 60 per cent. of its output is on commercial account and only 18 per cent. is required for the Admiralty for peace-time uses.
The ownership of this company therefore demands, in addition to technical "know-how," which the Admiralty possesses, the exercise of commercial expertise, which the Admiralty is not organised to provide—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: And which you do not possess.

Mr. Galbraith: That is precisely the case which I am trying to advance, and I am glad to have the hon. Member's support. For once in a while the hon. Member is right.
While the maintenance of the firm's defence potential was necessary the Admiralty, naturally, did the best it could, working in this unfamiliar sphere, but I cannot conceal from the Committee that Departmental methods of finance, with the resulting accountability to Parliament each year, ill accord with the most fruitful ways of developing a commercial concern. Now that the defence needs for the retention of the firm no longer exist, we think that it is much better to recognise the fact and for each of us to go our separate ways.
After all, this is not the first asset which a change of defence policy has caused the Admiralty to sell. I suppose that the Admiralty could have continued to run commercially, or at least have tried to run commercially, some of those assets which it has already sold, but that would have been a radical change for a defence Department to do this and until now, as far as I know, it has never been suggested that a defence Department should retain assets which it no longer requires for defence purposes in order to try to make a profit out of their possible—I repeat "possible"—commercial value.
I do not wish the Committee to think, however, that the Admiralty is bent upon the disposal of this firm willy-nilly without regard either for the national interest or for the welfare of the men and management who, by their skill and application, have raised the firm to the highly esteemed position which it now holds. Our Departmental interest, as I have explained, is certainly to dispose of the firm, but we are aware that there are other considerations and possible dangers to which the hon. Member for Newton referred and which must be guarded against. For this reason, we are not floating the company, but intend to effect a sale by private treaty which will enable us to ensure that the purchaser complies with the various safeguards which the Government think are necessary.
In the first place, although the firm is not as large as it was during the war, there has been a considerable increase since the early days and there are now

just under 940 employees. The accumulated skill and "know-how" of these men represents an asset which is a value to the nation, and, therefore, the Government—and I hope that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) noted that—intend that the sale should be governed by several important considerations.
First, the business should be kept on as a going concern under efficient management and not allowed to disintegrate. For this reason we will not sell to a purchaser unless he can convince us that he will be able not only to maintain but to develop to the full the potentialities of the high-precision manufacturing capacity which already exists in the firm. We shall require whoever purchases the firm to make full use of the facilities available at the factory at Watford and to assure us that they will carry through, as far as is practicable, projects already under development by S. G. Brown.

Mr. J. T. Price: What if they do not do so?

Mr. Galbraith: As for employment, the Admiralty has a good record in the establishments of which it has already disposed in dealing with the problem of surplus personnel, even in those establishments where closure has taken place. Of course, closure is not taking place in respect of S. G. Brown. As I have said, here we are selling a going concern. Nevertheless, we realise that the employees are bound to be worried by a change of ownership. For this reason the manager was instructed, when he saw the men at the time of the Parliamentary statement, to give an assurance that the Admiralty regarded continuity of employment as a major factor to be considered.
On Monday of this week, when I saw a deputation from the factory, I again gave this assurance. I was most impressed by the deputation's reasonable approach and appreciation of the Admiralty's point of view, even if they did not agree with it. As a result of this meeting with the deputation from the factory, I formed the impression that they were less worried about their employment than about the future of the firm. I do not want there to be any doubt, however, about the Government's attitude on this point, and I


therefore once more state that we regard future employment in the firm as of the greatest importance and that we shall consider as possible purchasers only firms which can assure us of their ability to provide continuity of employment of the same highly skilled type.
A fear which the hon. Member for Newton expressed is that a monopoly might be created as a result of the sale. There might once have been a chance that this could occur, but there are now several other firms engaged in this type of business and it is an extremely unlikely eventuality. Nevertheless, the Government intend to examine each possible purchaser and to assure themselves that there is no danger of the establishment of a monopoly even in a particular branch of the work at present carried out by S. G. Brown.
We are determined, too, that the purchaser should not be under foreign control and to ensure that the purchase is not financed in such a way that the firm might be brought under foreign control. Before agreeing to a sale, therefore, the Government will assure itself of these points.
There is one other feature which we intend to safeguard. As the House knows—indeed, the hon. Member for Newton referred to this—S. G. Brown has acquired the right to manufacture under licence equipment developed by the Bosch Arma Corporation of America. This work holds considerable promise for the future, and therefore in assessing the desirability of any possible purchaser who might have some American connections the Admiralty would assure itself that this would not damage or prejudice the existing arrangement between S. G. Brown and the Bosch Arma Corporation.
The kind of purchaser for which we are looking is a go-ahead company able to stand on its own feet and with adequate financial resources to develop to the full the potentialities which exist in S. G. Brown. At the moment, the firm is a little on the small side, with a rather modest R and D programme. What it requires is to be associated with a larger firm whose own production would dovetail into and complement that of Brown's.

Mr. Bevan: I think that probably hon. Members will agree that the hon. Gentleman has stated his case about the

Admiralty, but that is not our main case. Is it not a fact that every single requirement which he has so far stated would be met if the Admiralty handed over this affair to the Ministry of Supply? Why cross the river to fill the pail?

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has been popping in and out of the Chamber all the time and I do not think that he has been following my points properly. First, I stated that there was no longer a defence requirement. The Ministry of Supply is also part of the defence set-up. The second point that I made was that this company requires capital and that the normal machinery for obtaining money through the House of Commons is not the most effective way to help to develop a company.
The hon. Gentleman asked if we had any inquiries about this firm. We have, in fact, had several inquiries from companies of the character which I described. It is too early yet to speak about price, but I can assure the Committee that we have in mind a figure which will not only take account of the investment made by the State in purchasing the company and bringing it up to its present state of development, but which will reflect the longer-term potentialities of the company.
I believe that there is a feeling on the opposite side of the Committee that the State took over what was a small family business and that by good management and the injection of considerable capital a spectacular success has been made of the firm. In fact, although the company is much bigger than it was in 1940, it has not grown at any greater pace than many other similar firms. I am sure that any company in this line of business in commercial hands which is well organised and properly financed has a great future, but I can assure the Committee that it is only by a vigorous and timely investment policy that this can be brought about, as experience over recent years has shown.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been applications. Can he say whether the Admiralty has had any discussions with any of the firms which he has mentioned as being interested in this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: As the right hon. Gentleman says, there have been applications. All the applicants have been sent


—I would not exactly describe it as a prospectus, but something telling them about the company. There have not been serious conversations covering the points which I have enumerated.

Mr. Diamond: Send them HANSARD. The price will go up.

Mr. Galbraith: The company is not a ripe plum which is being offered for a song. We fully intend to get a good price and satisfactory payment for it, but the Committee must recognise that, although the plant is strong and has promise, its future cultivation will require much and costly attention. This is a task which is not really suitable to a Government Department. That is why it is in the best interests of the firm and its employees that it should be sold to someone able to give it proper attention and provide the wider commercial basis which will alone enable it to thrive fruitfully.
In conclusion, hon. Members opposite seem to believe that our decision to sell this firm has been primarily actuated by motives of political philosophy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can assure them that this is not so. If it had been so, we should have acted long ago. We should not have waited until now. The basic reason for the decision to sell this company—and I should like the Committee to pay attention to this point because I think that it is important—just like the reason for retaining it in the first instance, is a defence reason. As I have tried to explain, the defence reason is supported by sound financial considerations which affect both the wellbeing of the Admiralty and the company. As for all the other fears and imaginary dangers and difficulties which have been mentioned, the safeguards about price, employment, monopoly and foreign influence which the Government are insisting upon will dispose of them and there are no grounds for objection. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to endorse the sale of this company as a sound practical decision which is also in the best interests of the future prospects of the firm and of the men who work in it.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: In all my experience of the Admiralty, I never conceived it possible that I

would listen to a Civil Lord make a speech such as the one which we have just heard. What the sailors and officials of the Admiralty, let alone the workers in Brown's, will think about it tomorrow morning is hard to imagine.
I am sorry for the Civil Lord, because we all know that the reason he had to make his speech was not that he or the Admiralty were anxious to sell the firm but that they have had instructions to do so from the majority of Government back bench Members. That is the long and short of it. This debate brings out the basic difference between the two parties. Some people say that there is not much difference, but this debate brings out clearly the question, should businesses be conducted for private profit or in the interests of the nation?
In order to try to prove his case, the hon. Gentleman has resorted to the most fantastic arguments. He said that there is no need to build up a war potential. That would seem to be the most staggering remark from a man who is in charge of a section of the Admiralty and who speaks, presumably, with the authority of the First Lord and for the Government. It is a remarkable philosophy, because we are at the moment spending many hundreds of millions of pounds on doing just that. If there is no need to build up a war potential, why not sell the Navy, as one of my hon. Friends said? The same thing applies to the other two Services. As I said, I did not think it possible that a Civil Lord could ever descend to an argument of that character.

Sir Spencer Summers: I think the right hon. Gentleman has either completely misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what my hon. Friend said. My hon. Friend said that the policy was based on the assumption that peace-time manufacture could not be stepped up during wartime for the self-evident reason that conditions would not permit it.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not think that the Civil Lord said that, but we shall see in HANSARD tomorrow. Even if he did say that, it is a complete reversal of the policy of all three Services. It is interesting to know that in future there is no intention to establish a war potential.
Having said that, the hon. Gentleman then said that it is necessary in selling the firm to take account of the needs of further development. Why? If there is no need for a war potential, why bother about further development? The hon. Gentleman's arguments are completely illogical and make no sense whatsoever.
The hon. Gentleman has laid down various conditions in the remarkable prospectus which he has issued. Apparently, the business must continue efficiently. Why? What is the need for that if the Government are no longer interested in it? He then said that in order to satisfy the workers the factory must guarantee future employment. To what organisation can this firm be sold which will guarantee future employment? How can one possibly hope to sell this firm and insert a special clause in the agreement saying, "You must guarantee future employment"? It is quite ludicrous.
We were very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman admit openly what I certainly had known before, that not only was the firm of S. G. Brown inefficient but actually guilty of what amounts to sabotage. The Civil Lord said so himself. It would not produce the goods needed by the Admiralty in the early days of the war, and that was the original reason for taking it over.
In 1946 I was associated with the decision to retain the firm, and that decision was arrived at on several grounds. First of all, at that time we wanted to keep a war potential. Today, it seems that the Admiralty is not in the least interested in a war potential at all; it is concerned solely with the peace-time Navy, which is an interesting revelation that has been made on the side. We were also influenced by the fact that to retain the firm would not cost the Admiralty anything at all. We did not then have to put any more capital into it. There was no capital expenditure involved, we owned the freehold of the business, and there seemed no reason for our not retaining it.
We realised, of course, that there would not at once be so great a demand from the Navy as there had been during the war. Therefore, we wanted to keep up the skilled staff, and the precision plant—put in, not by the firm but by

the Admiralty during the war—and to sell the firm's products not only to the Admiralty but to other people.
What is wrong with that? I agree that it was not a private firm, but we thought it good that this Government firm should sell its goods both in this country and abroad. During the time that I was there, and I am sure since, many thousands of pounds worth of these goods have been sold abroad. I should have thought that desirable in itself, something that proved the success of the company, and something to which no one with the interests of the country at heart could take objection.
As I say, one reason for retaining the firm was to keep up the skilled staff, but another was to prevent the company from falling into the hands of Brown's themselves, who might have bought it back. Another factor that influenced our decision was one that has not so far been mentioned. It might have been bought by Sperry's. The only other firm making these instruments was Sperry's, and we thought it undesirable that that firm should have a virtual monopoly in these goods so necessary to the Navy.
The same reasons exist today—or so, at least, we on this side think. We do not want this company to be taken over by someone like the Browns and run inefficiently, or by Sperry's and become part of a big monopoly, or, as a third alternative,—and this seems to be the one most favoured by the Civil Lord—to be taken over by a firm which, although it might not have very much foreign capital, might have American capital. The hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between foreign capital and American capital and did not object to a large amount of American capital. I should like to know whether he would insist on at least 51 per cent. of the capital in the firm being British, or whether he does not mind it being entirely American—

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. When I talked about American capital, I was worried about the arrangement that S. G. Brown have with the Bosch Arma Company of America and said that we wanted to make sure that any possible purchaser who might have a slight American connection would not be inimical to the Bosch Arma Company


of America, as that would damage the development and prospects of S. G. Brown.

Mr. Dugdale: That will make it even more difficult to sell the firm. How anybody thinks that the firm will be sold after this debate, I cannot imagine—

Mr. Diamond: It will be given away.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, it will be given away.
By taking this action, the Government are risking three things. First of all, they will put at risk an efficient source of supply. That, apparently, does not worry the Civil Lord. I realise that it might not worry his hon. Friends so much, but I am surprised that it does not worry the man who is in charge of the supply department of the Admiralty. Next, if the firm should go to Sperry's, the Admiralty may be held up to monopoly tactics. Third, it may, in fact, be handed over to a firm with large America connections.
A fourth risk, of course, is that there might be a demand for a subsidy. We know all about industries handed back to private enterprise and then demanding subsidies—and not only subsidies. Colvilles do not want a subsidy, but they do want to borrow £50 million, with all the advantages of a Government loan at cheap rate, and then pay higher dividends to their shareholders. Exactly the same kind of thing may happen here. It may well be that the buyers of the company will be told, "If you get into difficulties later on and want more capital the Government will produce it at cheap rates—as they have done in other cases."
That is a fourth risk—that the company may, in future, demand a subsidy from the Government. As has been said, it is the steel story in miniature. Firms are taken over by the Government. They are equipped to run efficiently. Then they are sold, and immediately after the sale the buyers come back asking for subsidies. We condemn the decision to denationalise Brown's because it sacrifices the needs of defence, it sacrifices the best interests of the Royal Navy and it sacrifices the livelihood of the firm's workers to the stupid Conservative slogan—"Private enterprise is always best."

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Hon. Members probably realise that I am perhaps more interested in this debate than any other hon. Member now present. This firm is in my division. These are the people for whom I am, in fact, or allegedly, responsible—

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: By not a very large majority.

Mr. Farey-Jones: At least I won it from the Opposition, and, if I may say so, I have every intention of winning the seat again.
At the beginning of what I have to say, it is right—because I know that I shall get "rockets" from both sides—for me to state at once one of the principles by which I live my political life. I do not believe that any Government of any colour should run the country's industry. I do not believe in nationalisation of any kind. Over the years, my own experience and observation have led me to the conclusion that nationalisation has proved to be a complete and utter failure.
Let us look exactly at what we are discussing this afternoon. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) really had a wonderful knockabout in opening this debate, and the basis of his argument was the ownership of S. G. Brown. I am far more concerned with the guarantee of employment for the people who work in my division, the firm's future development, and the holding together of that fantastic group of technicians that are S. G. Brown's. Those are the things to which I have applied my mind in the last few days with particular emphasis, because, as the House may be aware, I have had very considerable experience of running just this type of factory.
I have come to the conclusion that to argue about who should be the owners is to start quite the wrong way. The real argument is in which way can we develop this firm so that we can add to the staff, can guarantee its future employment and can prevent it becoming a monopoly or falling into foreign hands.
I am very gravely disturbed by one feature. I am disturbed at the possibility of the firm being sold and at a later date, perhaps in a year or two, its complete


control being taken over by some of the slick operators of take-over bids. I am very disturbed about that possibility.

Mr. Diamond: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to stop them?

Mr. Farey-Jones: Just a minute. I said that I would get rockets from both sides of the House, and I shall, but I think that when I am speaking about my division I am entitled to ask the House to give me a hearing.
I am very concerned about that matter because I think that this take-over bid business is actually a major menace to our national industry. I believe that at some time or other the House will have to devote its attention to dealing with just that.
Coming back again to the firm of S. G. Brown, those of us who are interested in air navigation or sea navigation, in the production of guided missiles or, in fact, in anything to do with the new era and age in which we have entered, have no qualms of conscience or anxiety about the future of this firm. The firm can go so far in the next twenty-five years that one does not need to exercise one's imagination at all. I think it is absolutely right that I should say this to the Opposition. They are not always right any more than we are.
If the shop stewards throughout Great Britain acted in exactly the same way that the shop stewards in S. G. Brown have acted over the years, this country would be streets ahead in the international field. There is no question of a stab in the back, as the hon. Member for Newton said. After all, the House cannot have it both ways. I am quite sure that when the Navy Votes were before the House, right hon. and hon. Members opposite were among the people who cut them down. One cannot expect any Service Department to go on developing organisations similar to S. G. Brown and at the same time provide its necessary contribution to the defence of the country.
I am hoping that when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate he will give me the following undertaking. Every hon. Member on both sides of the House knows the personal efforts which I made throughout last year to get the Government to underwrite various strategic projects in the aircraft industry—not only to

underwrite them, but to make quite sure that certain inventions did not get into the wrong hands, were not operated by foreign bodies or became the property of foreign Governments. I feel that I am entitled to ask my right hon. Friend for an undertaking to that effect in the case of S. G. Brown.
Getting back to the future of the firm of S. G. Brown, is it the argument of the hon. Member for Newton that the grand group of fellows in this factory are only going to behave in the way they have—as an example to the whole country—if the firm belongs to the Admiralty? Is that the argument, because, if so, that is hypocrisy and humbug, as hon. Members opposite know only too well. I am supremely confident that the artisans and workmen of Watford have worked as they have because of their pride in the job and not because they belonged to the Admiralty or to anyone else. I am confident that they will continue to behave in that way.
I had certain very considerable anxieties when listening to the final sentences of my hon. Friend's speech, but I have had an undertaking that the firm will be preserved as a going concern. I have had a further undertaking that in any transactions that may take place—and do not let us forget that at this stage we are only being served with an intention to sell, and, of course, it may not be quite so easy to sell—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] On the other hand, between now and the actual sale, it may be that, as a result of this concentration of effort and thought, the people in S. G. Brown will have different ideas. It may be that my hon. Friend will have different ideas. I am not certain that the hon. Member for Newton will not have a quite different idea, if he really sticks to the suggestion that only if the firm belongs to the Admiralty or to the Ministry of Supply will it be a continued success, because I can tell him that S. G. Brown will remain a success and will go on from success to success over the years. I will help to see that it does.
Whatever happens to S. G. Brown, I am fully aware of the problems that are going to face all the strategic industries in the country, and that is why, as an hon. Member on this side of the House, I have put my suggestion to the Government concerning how in


the future we can underwrite our strategic industries.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not believe in nationalisation. I never have and never will. Indeed, I believe that the vast majority of people in the country do not believe in nationalisation either. Obviously, if S. G. Brown is to develop its full potential it must and should, and I hope it will, associate with an organisation or an industry in this country so that together in partnership they will be able to develop its fullest potential.
One further point.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Gentleman is running away from the case.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I never run away from anything in this kind of debate. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these people will be my electors at the next election? I am quite certain that what I am saying today will be accepted as part of the pride and intention of Watford as a whole.
Lastly, there is the matter of the Arma gyroscope, the latest development of S. G. Brown. Those hon. Members who are fully informed will know that this latest production of this very remarkable firm is a world-beater. There may be points of view on the benches opposite about letting the firm stay in the Admiralty, but I do not think that any Government Department, whether the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply or any other Department, can develop something like this gyroscope and sell it on the world market as must be done.
Therefore, in my own division, they will appreciate the issues involved. I think that the sale—under the proper guarantees provided this afternoon—is right and proper.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Under the circumstances, I am sorry for the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones). He has done his best in the difficult situation in which the Admiralty has put him. One can appreciate and accept his declaration that he does not believe in the nationalisation of any industry and that he believes that the workers of the firm would do just as

well under private enterprise ownership as under the control of the Admiralty. The answer is that these workers, at the time when it was decided not to retain this firm, made representations to the Admiralty that it should be retained. They were then told, "All right, this is an experiment in Socialism".
The workers were heart and soul in an experiment for Socialism, but it is asking too much of them to expect that they shall be heart and soul in an experiment in capitalism in precisely the same way. They will do their job, and they will be proud in doing it, but if it comes to a question of the amount of time spent on the job or if the firm gets into difficulty, they will be inclined to say. "Well, this firm is under capitalist management; you will have to handle this." Before, they would have been prepared to tackle such problems and make sacrifices which no private enterprise management could ask them to make.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is right for Admiralty funds to be used to finance an experiment in Socialism?

Mr. Pargiter: If that is the best argument we are going to hear, that cheap kind of jibe, it is a very good illustration of the weakness of the case from the Government Front Bench for the disposal of this firm.

Mr. Bevan: They have not got a case.

Mr. Pargiter: Let us look at this matter as an experiment in Socialism.

Mr. Bevan: Let us sell the Navy.

Mr. Pargiter: Apart from loans, the Government have invested, approximately, £300,000 in the company. Over a period of years they have taken approximately £154,000 in dividends, which is not too bad. I admit that it is not on the scale that private investors demand, but it is not too bad. They now hold £500,000 share capital and have assets worth £1,250,000. That is not a bad experiment in Socialism, is it?

Mr. Diamond: And they have a world-beater.

Mr. Pargiter: It is so successful that the company has to be disposed of


before we on this side of the House come into power because we might be inclined to continue an experiment of this kind. Such things as this must be got rid of. It is necessary, in the view of the Government, to dispose of anything which could possibly be regarded as a success in case there is a tendency on the part of a future Labour Government to pursue such a successful experiment.
Let us look at some of the other factors. I do not wish to go into the question of the overdraft and why it is there. Because the Admiralty has financed the company badly, it does not constitute a case against the company, and there is no case at all for disposing of it. The criticism of the way in which the Admiralty financed the company cannot be regarded as a request to dispose of it, but rather that the Admiralty should put its house in order regarding its financing of the company and put it on a sound financial basis. To that, the reply of the Admiralty was, "All right, we will sell it."
Let us come now to the products of the company which are, perhaps, some of the important things about which we should be concerned. First, there is the gyro-compass. That is the basis of the prosperity of S. G. Brown, and has been for a long time. It is the only compass of its kind which is not American-owned or controlled in some way. It is the only one which is completely independent. S. G. Brown has a world-wide service organisation—or the Admiralty has on its behalf—which has a good name throughout the world. That is the basis of the company's prosperity. Why should it be disposed of?
Now we come to another product, the Master Reference Gyro. This is rather important, and I hope that the Minister will make some notes about what I am saying. Again, I understand, it is the only one of its kind in the world. There may be other kinds. This was developed from a design provided by the Royal Aircraft Establishment. There is nothing of private enterprise about this. The Royal Aircraft Establishment brought the design to S. G. Brown to be developed, very largely because it was undesirable that the design should get into outside hands or that it should get outside the

Government Departments at that stage in its development. And so it was brought to a firm of repute which had facilities and resources to develop the design such as were not possessed by the Aircraft Establishment. And it has been successful.
We have heard about the small amount of purchases from this firm by the Admiralty, but no one has said anything about what other Government Departments were purchasing, or what were their interests in the firm.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my intervention. But I do not disguise this matter in any way, and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) referred to that question. Out of last year's sales of £1,600,000, sales to the Admiralty amounted to 18 per cent.; sales to the Ministry of Supply amounted to 24 per cent. The point I was trying to make was the declining interest of the Admiralty.

Mr. Pargiter: I hope I may be allowed to make my own speech.
We have this factory which is the only one of its kind. It was a story of the development of part of the defence requirements. This is a defence requirement if ever there was one, but this is one which is to come up for sale to private enterprise.
Now we come to the Bosch Arma unit. I believe it is a cardinal factor for defence purposes so far as America is concerned, if not from the point of view of Britain, that the company can undertake any arrangements only if it retains a direct interest in the concern. We ought to know what is the Bosch Arma tie-up. May we be told exactly what it is? We are told that this is a world-beater and something which is to be very wonderful.
Why did Bosch Arma, with its facilities and resources, want to manufacture here? Why does it want the manufacture to be carried out by a Government concern, by S. G. Brown? I doubt whether we shall be told the whole story. All of it would make an interesting story. I should like to know what are the arrangements regarding the possible manufacture and sale, and so on.
I think it is true that Bosch Arma, in its own sphere, is in competition in other parts of the world with the American


Sperry Company. Do not let us be under any illusions about the Sperry Company and who controls it. We had better have that clear in case there is any talk of this company going over to Sperry's.

Mr. Galbraith: Mr. Galbraith indicated dissent.

Mr. Pargiter: I see that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. Suppose that the company taking up a large share of this were the Arma Bosch company in some other disguise. Suppose this is the reason for its interest. Suppose it is part of the general set-up of this intensive competition in which the company is engaged with the other well-known company to which I have referred.
Not enough facts have been revealed. It is interesting to note, after the Questions and the interventions on this subject last week, that as I was interested in this matter on behalf of the shop stewards I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking that no steps be taken regarding the disposal of this firm until after we had had a debate on the matter in the House. I had a reply from the First Lord. The matter had been referred to him. Having enunciated the policy, the Chancellor was no longer interested in the detail. He shoved it over, saying, "This is a bit too warm for me. You can have this back."
It was interesting to note that the principal paragraph of the letter said:
All our negotiations for disposal are still at a very early stage.

Mr. Nabarro: When was that?

Mr. Pargiter: Of course, the statement about an intention to dispose, which, one presumes, would be presented to Parliament before any negotiations took place, was made only last Thursday week. The workers were informed only last Thursday week after the statement in the House that it was the intention of the Admiralty to dispose of the undertaking. Negotiations were in an early stage. Things must have been moving very fast if negotiations were begun since last Thursday week. May we know what negotiations were carried on before any announcement was made?

Mr. Bevan: And how?

Mr. Pargiter: May we have some facts about it? The further we go into it the worse it becomes.

Mr. Julian Snow: My hon. Friend referred just now to certain background possibilities in connection with the Bosch Arma company, and he referred to Sperry as being competitors. Would it not also be pertinent to inquire whether there is, in some part of the world, a licensing arrangement between those two great companies?

Mr. Pargiter: That carries the argument a little further. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Mr. Bevan: Worse and worse.

Mr. Pargiter: This company has been able to establish by competitive contracts, a place for itself and, incidentally, a place for British instrument making in many parts of the world. Because it has done it so successfully, the Admiralty says that it cannot carry it on. What an argument! Here we have the Admiralty, with the resources of the State, saying that it cannot run a commercial undertaking. Of course, the Government do not want to run a commercial undertaking if it is successful. That is the real basis of the matter.
We want more explanation, and I hope that we shall have it from the "maid of all work" who seems to have to come in on every occasion to answer for the Government when they are in trouble. May we be told about the guarantees which are to be given and required and about how far they can be effective? The only effective way by which this Government can ensure that their policy will be pursued in the long run, not in the short run, is to maintain a major holding in the capital of the company in order that they may have the necessary voice in its control. That is the only way.

Mr. Diamond: Of course it is.

Mr. Pargiter: I am quite satisfied about this. Why is there so much competition in take-over bids about who has 51 per cent. of the shares? It is obviously an important question. Who has the control? In this case, all the guarantees in the world will be valueless unless the Admiralty has some undertaking that it can take the company back in the event of the guarantees not being observed—I should be interested to know whether any company would accept that or would be willing to pay good money in those


circumstances—or, alternatively, it must maintain the major shareholding in the company.
If the Admiralty maintains the major shareholding, why not retain the lot? The arguments on this basis alone come down to quite simple issues, apart from the political problems and ideologies of both sides of the Committee. Simply from a commercial point of view, there is here a successful undertaking which has returned dividends to the Admiralty. It has given the Admiralty a value out of proportion to what was put in, a considerable enhancement of value over and above what has been invested. The basic investment has been the skill and ability of the workers and management, not the skill of the Admiralty.
Those people have done what they did because they believed in what they were doing, because they believed in their work as an experiment in Socialism; I come back to those words. We on this side are proud of it. Hon. Members opposite may be ashamed of it, but we shall shout it from the housetops because we believe it to be good. We believe that they have done well. We believe that the workers, whose desire it is to continue in the service of the country, through the Admiralty, should be permitted to continue. On that basis, I hope that we shall divide the House and win the day.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said that the resale of S. G. Brown Ltd. to private enterprise interests, among other things, "sacrifices defence". Those were the words he used. The case he made depended largely on the fact that, if the production of specialised instruments and associated equipment at Brown's works in Watford ceased as a result of the sale of the company to private enterprise interests, then Sperry would have a monopoly. I think that that was the gravamen of his case.
I have been at great pains, before entering the debate, to establish exactly the character of the production of S. G. Brown Ltd. and to establish where comparable highly specialised scientific instruments are made in other works, in this country. I am assured that there is no question whatever that the Admiralty and other Government Departments

would, even in the absence of S. G. Brown—the production of S. G. Brown Ltd., in any event would not be denied to them were it operated as a private enterprise interest—would not be able to obtain those instruments from an amalgam of any or all of the following companies which are engaged in similar work: Ferranti, Pullin, Elliott Brothers, Vickers, Barr & Stroud, McTaggart Scott.
There is, therefore, no question whatever, even in the very unlikely event of S. G. Brown Ltd. ceasing production altogether of specialised scientific instruments of the kind it makes, that a monopoly would repose with Sperry or with anybody else.
On the strategic issue, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it is true that, in 1946, as he himself declared—I believe that he was Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty at the time—the right hon. Gentleman made the decision to continue this company in public ownership.

Mr. Dugdale: It was a decision of the First Lord, obviously.

Mr. Nabarro: The First Lord's decision, obviously, but the right hon. Gentleman was a contributor.
At that time, strategic requirements were manifestly different from what they are today, thirteen years later. In those days, there were no considerations of thermo-nuclear weapons in our defence arrangements. The first and the second atomic bombs had, sadly, been dropped in 1945, which had hastened the end of the war.
Today, strategic and defence considerations are entirely different. Without entering into too much detail about the possibilities of thermo-nuclear attack upon this country, I should have thought that we should be very unwise to place strategic defence needs for equipment, especially highly scientific equipment, on the same basis as we did thirteen years ago, having regard to the enormous technological advances which have been made, since that date. I hope that those two points alone will demolish the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that strategic needs require that this factory should remain in Government ownership.
Then, says the right hon. Gentleman, the factory is to be "given away" by a


Government Department. The accounts of the company—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will readily confirm this when he replies—are available for any hon. Member of the Committee to see.

Mr. Diamond: Where are they?

Mr. Nabarro: At Somerset House, of course. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) claims to be a chartered accountant. When I wanted to know about the finances of S. G. Brown Limited, I went to Somerset House for a copy of the last balance sheet and statement of accounts.

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond rose—

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) wants to reply to the debate at six o'clock. I have only ten minutes.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman should not refer to Members present, then.

Mr. Nabarro: All right. I will give way.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, we all know that the accounts are there, but why was it not intended that they should be made available to the Committee, so that we could all consider the matter sensibly? The accounts should have been distributed and the figures should have been given from the Government Front Bench, instead of being withheld and concealed.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is a qualified chartered accountant. I am not. I am a mere simpleton in commerce, but I know how to read a set of accounts and where to go for them. Evidently, the hon. Member for Gloucester does not. I obtained a set of accounts for S. G. Brown Ltd.

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) does not give way, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) must resume his seat.

Mr. Nabarro: I obtained a set of accounts. Sir James, I have not given

way, but the hon. Member for Gloucester is still on his feet.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Sir James.

The Temporary Chairman: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Diamond: I thought that you, Sir James, had raised it as a point of order. That is why I referred to your Ruling. Is it not normal, is it not in order and is it not also courteous for an hon. Member to give way when he challenges another hon. Member by name?

Mr. Nabarro: I have already given way once to the hon. Member for Gloucester.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not concerned with courtesy. I am concerned only with matters of order. If the hon. Member who holds the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member for Gloucester must resume his seat.

Mr. Jack Jones: We cannot expect courtesy from the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: I hear the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) say that his hon. Friend need not expect courtesy from me. I gave way once to the hon. Member for Gloucester. As the right hon. Member for Huyton wishes to begin winding up for the Opposition at six o'clock, I do not intend to give way a second time.
The hon. Member for Gloucester is a chartered accountant. He should know where to go for company accounts. I know where to go for them. This morning—

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. I asked you for your Ruling, Sir James, and you gave it. Immediately following your Ruling, the hon. Member for Kidderminster returned to a personal attack, naming me personally. It may be that you are not responsible for courtesy, but you are in charge of this Committee. Can you not give a Ruling which will show the hon. Member for Kidderminster where his responsibility lies?

The Temporary Chairman: Up to now, the hon. Member for Kidderminster has not said anything out of order. In that event, I am not in a position to


stop the hon. Member saying anything, because he has not said anything out of order. I say nothing about courtesy. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Nabarro: I am deeply grateful to you, Sir James, as always, for your support.
I ascertained from Somerset House that the last set of accounts available was in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1958. No further set of accounts has been filed. I asked the Admiralty by telephone whether a further set of accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1959, was available. Those accounts are not yet available, though the books of the company have been audited and the accounts should be available in a few weeks time.
Over the last year or two this company has made an average profit before taxation and after depreciation of about £130,000. That is a profit assessable to Income Tax and Profits Tax which, the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) might note is the correct way to express a company's profit. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich talked about "a give away" when the company is sold. The assets of the company comprise: public moneys injected, £546,250; reserves of one kind and another as at 31st March, 1958, a further £603,374, making a total of £1,149,624. If we add a sum in respect of the last trading year ending on 31st March, 1959, it is probable that the aggregation of capital moneys and reserves is about £11 million. It would be correct to say that when this company is sold approximately a three to four year capitalisation of net profits should be added to the figure of £1¼ million. That is the usual basis.

Mr. Jack Jones: It is the hon. Gentleman's basis.

Mr. Nabarro: It is not my basis. The hon. Member for Rotherham knows how to pour steel, but not how to buy companies. One and a quarter million pounds, plus a three to four-year capitalisation of net profits, would give a sale figure of about £1½ million if this company was sold today.

Mr. Pargiter: Is the hon. Member giving that advice to potential purchasers?

Mr. Nabarro: No. I am stating the figure as a reasonable assessment of the values derived from the balance sheet, from last year's profits and all the other relevant facts which are readily available to any hon. Member. The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that many of them have not consulted these figures. This company today is worth about £1½ million. It is a very valuable asset. Having regard to its specialised character, there might be an exceptional emolument placed on the figure I have mentioned, which might run it up to £1¾ million.
Interest in the sale is manifest. Forty-two applications to purchase had been received by the Admiralty up to yesterday. I should like the Paymaster-General, when he replies, first, to confirm the figure of forty-two applications and, secondly, to say how many of them came from American or other foreign interests. I was delighted to have the assurance of the Civil Lord that this company will not be sold abroad, but it would put matters in their correct perspective if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General would confirm my figure of 42 applications up to yesterday and say how many of them are applications from companies in this country and how many have come from abroad.
My right hon. Friend also might confirm that there will be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to selling this company to an engineering group of companies, or a company in a similar line of business in this country, notwithstanding that a take-over bid would be involved. Of course, this is a take-over bid. It is, perhaps, a different sort of take-over bid to the affairs in the last day or two of Harrods Stores, Debenhams and the House of Fraser in the distributive trade. Take-over bids seem to be anathema to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are even anathema to one or two of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Diamond: There is one in front of the hon. Gentleman, namely, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones).

Mr. Nabarro: I am a naïve fellow. I do not understand why they should be anathema. A take-over bid is involved here, and it is an interesting reflection to think about what happened a year or two ago with the parlous financial condition


of that eminent daily journal the Daily Herald. There was a take-over bid for that paper.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It has improved.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member says that it has improved. There was a takeover bid for the Daily Herald by Odhams Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member should read it."] I read it every day. It is my favourite journal. The Daily Worker and the Daily Herald are first at my breakfast table every morning. That is why I always know the answers. I would not learn them anywhere else. I believe in the hustings, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has so often found when he has been debating against me elsewhere.
Odhams Press made a take-over bid for the Daily Herald. Odhams Press would also have been taking over an Income Tax loss forward from the Daily Herald. The Daily Herald is a Socialist enterprise. So is the loss. A loss is invariably a Socialist enterprise. Odhams Press buy the loss forward in the Socialist Daily Herald, but then Odhams Press, with its deep Socialist interests, makes a takeover bid for Newnes Publications and competes with the News of the World for that valuable magazine chain—

Mr. Jack Jones: "Comic Cuts"?

Mr. Nabarro: I agree that they are all in the chain. Odhams Press and the Daily Herald love to be associated with "Comic Cuts". [Interruption.] I have some small children, and "Comic Cuts" is often in the household.
Take-over bids and purchases of losses forward for Income Tax purposes transcend all party political considerations. It is only the hypocrisy and humbug of the Opposition in this Committee which would try to make the general public think they feel otherwise. Of course, we must sell S. G. Brown Ltd. It is no part of Conservative philosophy to retain in public ownership such enterprises, which produce goods of a competitive character that are better produced by private industrial concerns, whether it is public houses in Carlisle or gyroscopes in Watford, or the rural buses or the rump of British Road Services. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or false

moustaches in Kidderminster."] No, it is not false, as I said the other day. The hon. Member did not take the point I made to the Chancellor. I said that carpets were made in Kidderminster and that moustaches were not analogous in any way.
It is no part of the philosophy of the Tory Party to sustain public ownership in any field. I am sorry that the hon. Member of Newton has left his place now, for in the course of his interesting speech, gravely inaccurate in many respects, he accused the Tory Party of selling all public undertakings which showed a profit or earned a surplus year by year, and of retaining in public ownership only such undertakings as made a loss, so that the Tory Party, he said, could demonstrate to the country the fallacies of nationalisation.
The hon. Member for Newton was surely gravely inaccurate in his comments. The electricity boards earned a substantial surplus last year. The Tory Party has not endeavoured to sell them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet"] No, not yet. There may come a time—I hope there will—when we shall do so. I am not ashamed of my political convictions. I do not believe in these worn-out shibboleths of public ownership. We have made no attempt to sell the electricity boards. Neither have we made any attempt to sell the gas boards. There are many undertakings in the country which are in public ownership, and which are earning a surplus, and which we have made no attempt whatever to dispose of. But those are of a different character from the company which we are discussing today.
The reason for the difference is not very hard to seek. Electricity is almost completely a statutory monopoly. So are gas, coal and the railways almost completely statutory monopolies. But we are today discussing a company which is neither of a statutory character nor a monopoly. It is a highly competitive commercial enterprise, which, due to fortuitous circumstances, the Government acquired for war purposes. These circumstances arose from unpatriotic behaviour on the part of a tiny minority of capitalists in 1940, in exactly the same way as there was a tiny and insignificant minority of unpatriotic trade unionists in 1940.
There is always a tiny and insignificant minority of unpatriotic elements in this country—capitalist or trade unionist. Later, as a result of defence needs in 1946, possibly rightly—I do not argue about that; it is thirteen years ago—the company was continued in public ownership. But it is no part of a Conservative Government's philosophy in the highly competitive times in which we live today—

Mr. John Hynd: How does the hon. Gentleman justify his reference to a highly competitive situation when the whole trend of private enterprise at the moment is destroying competition by the vast take-over bids?

Mr. Nabarro: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here a moment ago when I was talking about that. I will respond at once to his point. At Question Time, a few days ago, I referred to an affinity of interest between companies which amalgamate or where takeover bids are involved. Affinity of interest is a justifiable cause for an almagamation or a take-over bid. There may well be in the case of S. G. Brown an affinity of interest with the company which buys it. It may be a question of vertical combination in industry or lateral combination in industry, but there may well he an affinity of interest which Treasury Ministers recognise often improves efficiency. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman has been told to sit down.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has written on this sheet of paper, which has been passed to me, "Congratulations on your admirable speech."
I was talking about an affinity of interest. Obviously, there is one between my right hon. Friend and myself in these matters. There was a recently widely-publicised effort at a take-over bid when Schweppes Ltd., on the one hand, and St. Martin's Preserving Company, on the other—

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order, Sir James. This is an important debate and many hon. Members want to participate. We shall be debating these matters on Monday. Is it in order to talk about

Schweppes' take-over bid on the Admiralty Vote?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide, but it was clear from the opening speech which I heard, although I was not in the Chair, that some wider policy question was involved. Therefore, it is a little difficult to rule an hon. Member out of order when he also refers to a wider question.

Mr. Nabarro: "Schweppervescence" is always fortifying on these occasions. There is obviously an affinity of interest between a jam manufacturer, a jelly manufacturer and a mineral water manufacturer, and it might be in the interests of efficiency and lower prices to the consumer if the take-over bid succeeded. In this case, as so much interest has centred upon who is to acquire this important company of S. G. Brown Ltd., I want my right hon. Friend to make it perfectly clear that if it is a matter of vertical or lateral combination with another British concern which has an affinity of interest, it is very desirable in the longer term that those should be the arrangements.
I strongly support the disposal of the assets of this company for the substantial sum of £1½million to £2 million. It is a sound take-over bid by private enterprise from the nationalised section of industry. I hope that it will be followed in the course of the next few years by similar disposals—Carlisle public houses, the buses, the rump of British Road Services and the remainder of the nationalised steel industry—before we proceed perhaps with such undertakings as the gas and electricity boards and a few of the better coal mines.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Until 25 minutes ago we were engaged in a serious debate into the affairs of S. G. Brown, Ltd., and I am sorry that 25 minutes of the short time available for the debate was taken up by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), talking, with characteristic modesty, about himself, all the way from his moustache to his breakfast reading. I hope that we may now turn our attention once again to the affairs of S. G. Brown Ltd.
As I understood him, the Civil Lord argued the case for the disposal of this


firm on three grounds: first that a Government Department ought not to retain the ownership of a manufacturing enterprise whose products were not needed for national purposes or strategic purposes; secondly, that this company required capital and a Government Department ought not to retain the ownership of a company which requires capital when it could use this money for other purposes; and, thirdly, that a Government Department is not organised to be able and is not able to run a factory of this sort properly. I want to say something about each of those three contentions.
I find myself completely puzzled by the suggestion by the Civil Lord that the fact that the products of this company may not be needed—I do not know the facts about that—for war purposes means that ownership can now be passed to some other private enterprise. Suppose this company were now in private ownership and somebody were proposing to transfer it to public ownership, I would then say that the Civil Lord's argument would be a weighty argument for not making the change, if he said, "We do not want to take into public ownership a company whose products we do not need". I think that would be a weighty argument indeed.
I think that it has far less weight, if it has any weight at all, if he is putting it forward as an argument for turning upside down and disturbing—because one cannot make the change of ownership without such disturbance, as we see from the reaction of the workers—an enterprise which, admittedly, is functioning very well and, admittedly, is a successful enterprise.
I want to make a second comment on the Civil Lord's argument that the question whether the nation needs the products of a certain company is the criterion whether that company should be in national ownership. I beg him to understand that that argument can be turned round, and I beg him to consider the implications of this if it is turned round, because if he is arguing that the question whether an enterprise should be in private or public ownership should be decided on the criterion of whether the products of that enterprise are of strategic value or necessary to the national needs I am prepared to go along

with him. I am quite prepared to say, "All right, let us take into public ownership every enterprise whose products are needed in the national interest."
The Civil Lord cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that if a company is manufacturing products which are not required in the national interest that means that it must be privately owned, then he is saying, inferentially, that if the company's products are needed the company ought to be publicly owned.
I am prepared to take the hon. Gentleman up on that and do a deal with him, and make a take-over bid. Let him have this take-over bid for S. G. Brown Ltd. if we can go through the list of the Admiralty suppliers and through the list of the Ministry of Supply suppliers whose products are needed in the national interest, and through the list of those people supplying essential equipment to the railways, because the railways are a strategic weapon, and say, "All right, let us decide that those companies on this basis should be taken within public ownership because their products are needed by the nation."
We have only to look at the argument the other way round to see what nonsense it is to claim that this question whether products are needed in the national interest should act in any way, even in a remote way, as the criterion of how businesses ought to be owned.
The Civil Lord's second point was that this firm requires capital. O.K. I am quite prepared to have a look at every firm in that light as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) reeled off a whole list of companies which, to recall the piece in the Daily Telegraph which he quoted, are standing out with a begging bowl. This, too, is no criterion at all of what are the proper boundaries between private ownership and public ownership.
Then he said that a Government Department is not competent to run a business of this sort. Government Departments have run with great efficiency businesses much bigger, much more difficult to operate, and much more complex than S. G. Brown, Limited. Of course, it demands a great deal of managerial skill. Although I do not wish to be unkind, I am bound to say that listening to the Civil Lord today I should not be very happy to work in a firm he was


running if his speech today was any evidence of his managerial competence. But, thank goodness, he is not a permanent fixture and will not be there much longer.
Indeed, under other Ministers, senior and junior, it is a fact that enterprises of great complexity, technical complexity, administrative complexity, have been very well run by Government Departments, and I have sometimes wished that some of the publicly-owned industries at present under the care of autonomous public corporations were being run by Government Departments instead, because I think that that would make a substantial improvement.
Finally, the Civil Lord said, "Do not let anybody worry. I am making some concessions to the protests which have been received"—both public and the secret ones in the 1922 Committee, or in some other committee where the Civil Lord got a "bashing" the other night. "I am very well aware," says the Civil Lord, "that this is a serious matter. The occupation and perhaps the livelihood of 940 employees of S. G. Brown, Limited, and constituents of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), are at stake. I therefore realise that this is a serious matter. I can understand if people are perturbed, and justifiably so." Therefore, he reeled off a list of guarantees he was going to demand from the prospective purchaser.
The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members of this Committee are not children in arms. The hon. Member for Kidderminster is not the only man who can read a set of accounts, though other people do not boast about it as much as he does. He knows that we are not children in arms. He knows that residual power in an enterprise rests with the holders of the equity shares, and that when the First Lord, or whoever holds the shares as his nominee, has given up the equity shareholding the extent to which he can exercise influence over what is done by the purchaser is limited both in scope and in time.
If the Civil Lord is to ask the prospective purchaser to give guarantees for all time he will not be able to sell the business for counterfeit money let alone real money, because no purchaser will give guarantees for all time, or even for a very long time in this uncertain world.

The guarantees that the Civil Lord read out today are not worth the paper of the brief from which he read them, because the purchaser can come along and certainly sign an undertaking, and honourably intend to carry it out, that he will do his best to maintain the employment of the 940 workers, and so on.
But what happens if the product has a slump? What happens if somebody comes along with another take-over bid? What is the guarantee worth then? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing."] Is the new purchaser going to give the same guarantees? Does the Civil Lord really think that the new purchaser will renew the guarantee that the business will not fall into foreign hands, that the first purchaser can get the new purchaser to give an undertaking that if he wants to sell the company he will sell only to a British company, and that if the second purchaser should wish to sell to a third he will be able to obtain like undertakings from the third purchaser, and so on ad infinitum?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said, there is only one way in which one can determine the policies and the actions of a company and that is to hold its shares. When the Government give them up they know that they are giving up any power at all to have carried out the policy which they say they want carried out. To that extent, I regret to say, there is an element not only of foolishness but even of dishonesty in the case put forward, and I hope that the Committee will make plain what it thinks about it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In many ways, the interest shown in the debate suggests that it is a pity that more time was not provided for this very important case, though, as I have already indicated on a point of order, I think that there will be an opportunity on Monday of discussing some of the more general considerations which have been brought up in a number of speeches, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) this afternoon.
We have not had much of an answer from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but I understand that we are to have


a winding-up speech from the Paymaster-General. I think it was on the Finance Bill about a fortnight ago that I indicated that when the Government have a really bad case the one motto that echoed round Whitehall was "Send for Reggie". [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the Attorney-General?"] Oh, no. I think that the speech which the Paymaster-General made on that occasion proved my point. He has an even worse case to defend today. Not only has he to reply to the points made by my hon. Friends, and to any further points which I may advance, but he has still to reply to the main case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton, because the Civil Lord never even began to reply to it.
My hon. Friend outlined the main developments in the history of this affair, and I think that it is not necessary for me to repeat them, though it is, perhaps, worth while to remind the Committee of some figures. Here we have a firm with a pre-war capital of £30,000 and of £50,000 at the time of take-over and a present-day value of certainly not less than £1,200,000. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has done his own private valuation and he says that it is worth about £1,500,000. We have had figures given of the gross trading profits, which in the last five years averaged £190,000 a year, which is not bad on £50,000 in those war-time conditions.
The plain fact is, and no one has attempted to deny it, apart from certain denigrations in the speech of the Civil Lord, that this is a thriving firm. But in spite of—perhaps it would be more accurate to say because of—that fact, the Government are now offering it to their friends in private business. We have found this before. It is almost exactly three years ago today that we debated the Trinidad Oil sell-out whey the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, was attempting to defend considerations of this kind. As we found with the Trinidad Oil sell-out, when the patriotism of hon. Members opposite is weighed against private profit it is the patriotic part that suffers.
It is clear from the Civil Lord that he, at any rate—and it is true of his party generally—has no pride in national assets. It does not suit the book of the party

opposite to say what national assets have been built up. It is very rare to hear any tributes from them to the achievements of public enterprise, which they know in their heart of hearts has been the remarkable success story of this post-war world, if they believe that any of these nationalised industries are capable of earning a profit for private owners, it pleases them to take the sort of decision which we have had announced in this case. One of my hon. Friends, who was perhaps going a little far, said that they would even denationalise the Navy if they thought that it would provide pickings for private enterprise. I do not put that forward seriously.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton has shown, this case is consistent with Government policy over months and years past. It is completely consistent with the policy of handing back the more profitable part of public enterprise—steel and road transport, particularly—to private hands. It is consistent with the rumours that we hear more and more every day that if by any mischance the party opposite were re-elected to power in the forthcoming election, it would be the policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to hand back still more of the profitable parts of public industry, leaving the inevitably unprofitable parts in public hands as a permanent political argument for them to use. We hear, for example, that they propose to take some of the more profitable transport hotels out of the hands of the British Transport Commission and hand them over to their private enterprise friends, and point to what is left, what the hon. Member for Kidderminster calls the "rump", of the public transport system.
This is consistent also with the Government's refusal to allow the British Transport Commission to develop valuable sites in its possession, which could yield a tremendous capital advantage to the Commission, in the centre not only of the City of London but of other towns and cities. It is consistent with their refusal to allow the Commission to do that, in order that it should be forced to sell the site to private developers at bargain prices. All this is all of a piece with Government policy.
It is consistent, within the defence field, with the policy, debated in the


House on many occasions, of transferring work from the Royal Ordnance Factories and other Government Departments to private industry and then closing down the Government establishments, which, of course, then have no work. As I am sure all who heard him would agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton made a extremely strong case. It is only for me, in as kindly a fashion as I can adopt, to deal with the Civil Lord's attempt to reply. The Civil Lord made a point that my hon. Friend referred to the firm being taken over on grounds of inefficiency. Apparently, according to the Civil Lord, it was not inefficient. The firm was taken over by the Admiralty in war-time not because of inefficiency, but because it refused to observe war priorities laid down by a national Government in war-time. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend when I say that we will not quarrel—it was not inefficiency, it was sabotage of the war effort.
Then, having proved the need—and I think that he proved it as well as we could want him to do—for this firm to be kept under public ownership, because every one of his arguments proved that what he sincerely wanted to achieve could be achieved only under public ownership, having done that and entirely failed to prove that private ownership could have done or could in the future do the job better, the Civil Lord went on to speak of the Admiralty. He relapsed into his Departmental brief. He said that the Admiralty is not, of course, the sort of Department that can be concerned with building up national assets. The Admiralty's concern is only with the satisfaction of Departmental requirements for defence supplies for the Navy.
We entered this debate in the mistaken understanding that the Civil Lord was replying not for the Admiralty but for the Government, but he never attempted to answer the much broader arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. Is not the Admiralty part of the Government under this Administration? I hope that the Paymaster-General, who has a rather broader approach to some of these questions, will deal with this. Even if Samuel Pepys is still running the Admiralty, as was pretty clear this afternoon, have we not a Ministry of Supply? If the

right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Ministry of Supply is not the appropriate organisation to take over the firm—and the Paymaster-General in his peregrinations has been Minister of Supply at one time or another—could not the Chancellor, who seems to have taken some responsibility for this, set up a public corporation with the Treasury holding the shares?
Incidentally, many of us have been wondering this afternoon where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been, because it was the inept replies of the right hon. Gentleman to the Questions put to him a few days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton and some of my right hon. Friends, which made it clear to us that the Government's approach to this matter is clearly and unashamedly ideological. One would have thought that the Chancellor, having got his colleagues into that mess with those Answers, would have been here this afternoon at least to defend the line he took. Indeed, it might not have been inappropriate if, instead of "sending for Reggie", they had let the Chancellor stand up at the Box and defend the extraordinary remarks he made on that occasion, which were quoted by my hon. Friend.
We were told this afternoon that this is not a job for the Admiralty. There was no attempt, however, to answer the question of whether the Government had a responsibility. The Civil Lord was put up to speak for the Government, and if the Admiralty has so narrow a conception of the public interest, an early priority is that we should nationalise the Admiralty. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would be a revolution."] An even bigger revolution would be to nationalise the Treasury.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth) rose—

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that the hon. Member has not got into the debate. Did he wish to say something?

Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a very good thing if we nationalised the Treasury. That was exactly what his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said in 1951 to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Gaitskell) when he disowned him.

Mr. Wilson: I have heard that intervention many times before from the hon. Gentleman and it does not improve on repetition. However, I can inform him that the job of nationalising the Treasury is not one that could be done within the lifetime of any one Parliament.
The Civil Lord went on to say what were the plans of the Admiralty. He was proposing a sale by private treaty. Some of us are getting a little suspicious about sales by private treaty. There was the extremely fishy business about the sale of some of the Trinidad Oil shares three years ago, when it was our regrettable duty to point out how far short the present Tory Front Bench fell of the ideals laid down for them by Disraeli in respect of the purchase of Suez Canal shares. Now we hear of the "rump" of these shares—to use a word which the hon. Member for Kidderminster would use—being disposed of by private treaty in a manner which has caused great concern and criticism in the City. One would like to know about the method by which the Admiralty—or in this case the Treasury—hawk their goods around to certain favoured customers instead of on a general basis.
This House has always been extremely jealous of the allocation of contracts, whether for sale or for purchase, by public Departments. It has rightly been very jealous of this and has laid down over more than a century the conditions under which such sales or purchases should be made, and they have been strictly observed. They were strictly observed under the Labour Government. I remember when I was in a very junior Ministerial position—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works—being in charge of a committee which dealt with every sale or purchase or contract let by the Ministry of Works which was not let as a result of public tender. Each required Ministerial approval and careful vetting and specification.
Now we are hearing about sales by private treaty and the Civil Lord did nothing to reassure my anxieties this afternoon on that point. I want to ask the Civil Lord or the Paymaster-General whether they have a firm in mind.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance because he has already been asked to give us a

few figures. Although I do not remember this being stated by the Government, the hon. Member for Kidderminster told us how many applications there had been. The hon. Gentleman seems to know a lot about it. He told us, before the Civil Lord had said a word on the point, that there had been forty-two. The hon. Gentleman also asked how many were American firms, because he wanted them ruled out right away, as we all do. So I hope the Paymaster-General will tell us more about this sale by private treaty and how generalised the offer will be. At any rate, I am glad to have his reassurance that there is no firm already in mind.
If there is no firm already in mind, how is the Civil Lord so sure that on the conditions he has laid down—pretty rigid conditions which I am sure have become a great deal more rigid since the debate was announced; indeed, I think that the firm was to be disposed of in a very cavalier manner before the question was raised in the House—he will get rid of the firm at a satisfactory price and with the fulfilment of the conditions he has laid down?
Let us go over the conditions he has laid down, many of which are unexceptionable. The hon. Gentleman said it was essential to preserve the firm as a going concern. He said that it must continue to provide employment. As far as one could gather from his speech, he meant not just employment in total but employment for the skilled team which operates there. We all sympathised with the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) in his predicament this afternoon. The pull between his constituency and party loyalty must be strong. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as a fantastic team. He used that word at Question Time a few days ago and also this afternoon. He probably meant that its members are unique in their skill and ability to work together.
I hope I am right in assuming that the Civil Lord is giving us an assurance that the team will be kept together; not merely that a similar number of workers will be found jobs as a result of the sale. I hope he will also give us an assurance on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton on the question of monopolies. The hon. Gentleman gave a list of the conditions, many of them unexceptionable, as I have said,


but how will he enforce them on any private firm? The only way he can be sure of enforcing the conditions is to hold on to the management and ownership of the firm through public ownership. The hon. Gentleman did not answer that point. All the conditions can be enforced as long as the firm is in public ownership.
I want to ask the Paymaster-General to take up what the Civil Lord said about possible alien influences in the future ownership of the firm. I think I am right in saying that the Civil Lord gave an assurance that the ownership would not pass into American hands or into the hands of any other country—

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated assent.

Mr. Wilson: —at any rate as a result of the first sale by the Government. How does he know, having disposed of the firm to perhaps a reputable British firm, that it will not in twelve months, two years or some other time, be sold to a consortium, possibly dominated by American interests, or sold outright to an American firm? How does he know—I presume the shares will be dealt in on the open market—that there will not be portfolio investment in the firm by American concerns? There have been some amazing success stories on the part of American share buying in the past few months. We saw them clearly buying in shares through nominees but no one knew who was doing it. How do we know it will not happen again? I hope that the Paymaster-General will reassure us on that point.
Finally, I want to underline one or two of the general considerations raised by this case. First, there is the question of our defence preparedness, which is not a party issue but one of concern to the whole Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) was right in saying that the Civil Lord's argument about this seemed to show a very remarkable change in the Government's policy on defence preparedness. If the gyros and other things are not essential to our future defence, if there is no question of building a war potential, I should be glad to see the resultant cut in Government expenditure on armaments which would result from that policy.
Secondly, insufficient attention has been paid, especially by the Civil Lord, to this experiment in industrial relations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton referred. Some years ago many hon. Members in all parts of the House saw a remarkable film called, "Chance of a Lifetime". The reason why we saw it was that it had been refused a circuit release by the big cinema circuits. It showed the story of a firm where the shop stewards and the management got together and made a great success of industrial production, which had not previously been possible.
That is the story of the firm which we are debating today. It is clear that on many occasions and in many respects a degree of industrial relations has been created which is not usually found in British industry. I noticed that the hon. Member for Watford said that if similar industrial relations applied in other firms in British industry, Britain would be streets ahead of her industrial rivals.
That is our point exactly. This is 4 publicly-owned industry. Despite that great tribute paid to it by the hon. Member for Watford, not only the Government but also the hon. Member for Watford are conniving at destroying this very successful experiment in industrial relations. [Interruption.] I will put it in its very lowest terms. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can continue mouthing the phrase "free enterprise" until they are blue in the face. We are concerned here with a successful piece of public enterprise which the hon. Member for Watford and his right hon. and hon. Friends will endanger by what is proposed by the Government.
A third general consideration was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton—the question of consultation with the workers in this case. On 2nd June we had some Questions with regard to what would be done about take-over bids made by Mr. Clore and others. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, not attempting to answer the question put to him, turned to me and said:
… I wonder whether the right hon. Member would like to give an assurance that before any further nationalisation he would secure the views of the workers, for example, in the iron and steel industry, and of the shareholders, including the trade unions?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1959; Vol. 606. c. 24.]


I will not deal with that this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I hope to have a chance to deal with it on Monday. In any case, it was dealt with far more effectively than any eloquence of mine by the votes of the workers at Penistone last week.
If it is right for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that before one considers nationalising the steel industry one must consult the workers, by the same token the Government should have consulted the workers before proposing to denationalise this firm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said, let us have a poll, for none of us would fear the result.
Here we have the big issue before the Committee. We have a successful firm built up by public enterprise, with sound expansion based on the ploughing back of profits, based on a very prudent dividend policy. That has been made quite clear. Probably private owners would not have been satisfied with the dividend policy. Now the firm is to be handed over to private enterprise to get the pickings and any future inflation of share values. Do we want to see great fluctuations in share values of the firm? Do we want the management to be watching their share values all the time, to be looking over their shoulders at possible take-over bids, instead of getting on with the job of production, at which they have had such a successful record? [HON. MEMBERS: "Exaggeration."] It is not an exaggeration. This is a very accurate picture of British industry today.
We have an entirely different argument the other way round. When private firms are in a mess and the Government have to bail them out with a subsidy or some other financial help, there is never any suggestion then that the State should take a share in the equity which it is helping to preserve. We have seen what happened in steel.
There is one thing, however, which the Civil Lord did not know, apparently. We had it from the lips of the hon. Member for Watford. This firm has some new development, and the hon. Member for Watford, who claims to be an expert in this field—we grant him his claim—said that the product is a world-beater. It is just at this moment of time that the Civil

Lord decides to sell the firm to private enterprise, just when it has developed a new world-beater. That, of course, is why the Government are handing it over.
We have not had a proper explanation today. Even Conservative hon. Members had said—the hon. Member for Kidderminster said it—"This is in accordance with Tory philosophy. That is why we are doing it". In that case, one wonders why they have not done it before. They have had eight years in which to do it. Or are they waiting until the firm has been really successfully built up before handing it over to their friends? Are they having a last-minute check-up on the opportunities for private enterprise fearful, as they have every right to be, of the result of the forthcoming General Election, and making certain that they dispose of the last really profitable elements of public enterprise before the General Election takes place? This case bears all the signs of the Government deciding to try to get their loot while the going is still good.

6.46 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): We have had a wide range of speeches, starting with the rather vigorous introduction by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), and ending with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who put to me several questions which I will answer. In between, we have had an impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones). I think that the whole committee was struck by the clarity and candour with which he spoke on the subject, which, rightly, affects him so much.
There are three parties to the matter—the firm and its employees, the Admiralty, and the taxpayer. It is our belief that in all three cases the sale of the company will be an advantage and not a disadvantage. That is the reason why we are taking the present step.
First, with regard to the firm and its employees, the interest of the firm and the employees is in the greatest degree of commercial expansion. It is our belief that as the firm is predominantly engaged in civil work it is more likely to expand if it is free from Government control.
Secondly, we believe that the firm will need great further injections of capital. Even the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) nodded at that. We believe that the firm is more likely to get the capital it needs satisfactorily from sources other than annual Votes by this House [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of the working of the Government's financial system.
Thirdly, we believe that the future of the company will be greatly enhanced by association with another company with strong research and development resources and with products complementary to its own. In all these ways, the company will grow stronger, and as the firm grows stronger, its employees will be better off.
The second party is the Admiralty. The Admiralty, by this sale, will divest itself of responsibilities for the company, responsibilities which the Admiralty is not designed to carry on properly. Even more important, it will relieve itself of a serious and continuing load upon Admiralty Estimates. When we know how carefully Admiralty Estimates are now checked by the House, it is right that the Admiralty should do everything it can to reduce its Estimates and not right that those Estimates should be left with large, regular sums for investment in a commercial undertaking. Finally, the Admiralty's Estimates should not be used for large-scale financing of commercial activities.
The third party is the taxpayer. The taxpayer will no longer have to provide money for the firm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) pointed out, the money which is provided has to be borrowed at a substantial rate of interest. The taxpayer will not have to provide money for investment in a business which, although good, is clearly of a speculative character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Labour Party is always saying that all private enterprise is speculative and that all commercial activities are speculative. This is a commercial activity, and its future cannot be predicted because its future lies in its competitive strength and nothing else.
Those are the reasons why we have acted as we have done, for the benefit of the firm, the Admiralty and the taxpayer.
What about the objections that are raised? First, it is said that the employees may suffer. Why? Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that the Government, as a matter of principle, are better employers than private industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] I do not accept that. Secondly, do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite really pretend that the Government can guarantee full employment in this firm? This is the point that has been made. This is the pretence which is being offered, that employment is guaranteed if the firm remains a State enterprise. That is nonsense, of course.

Mr. Lee: Did not the Civil Lord say that that was one of the conditions which the Government would enforce?

Mr. Maudling: He did not say that. He said that we were trying to make sure that any firm which took over could assure us of its ability to provide continuity of employment of the same highly skilled type. That is all that a firm can do, and it is all that the Government can do. It is nonsense for the party opposite to pretend that under private enterprise jobs in this firm will be any less safe than they are under the Government.
It was a pity that the hon. Member for Newton said so much about the effect on industrial relations of this firm being not handed back, as has been said—but sold back to private enterprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford took that point up very well, I thought. On both sides of the Committee, we have accepted that this company is doing well and that it has done well for some time, and that much of this clearly depends upon the relations between management and men, but it is suggested by the hon. Member that these relations are good only because the Government own the company. I thought that a rather poor comment on the men concerned. It is quite clear that that is the implication. If it is argued that the sale of the company will worsen industrial relations, it must follow that he is arguing that industrial relations are only as good as they are because it is publicly owned.

Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting what I said. I pointed out that the workers there have had a very


great say, in the first place, in the company being retained in public ownership. They then accepted certain responsibilities which flowed from that. In consequence of accepting those responsibilities, they did more than any Government or private employer could expect to ensure the success of the company, but, in consequence of what they have done since, the Government stab them in the back and hand the firm back to private enterprise.

Mr. Maudling: I prefer the views of my hon. Friend that it is pride in their job which has led to the high standard of work in the factory. It is very interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman, as well as the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) talked about an experiment in Socialism. The workers in the factory were told it was to be an experiment in Socialism, and that was why the firm was not sold back. That is not what Parliament was told. Parliament was told something quite different. It was told that the company was being retained because of defence reasons. Was that the reason? Or was it, as we have since come to hear, because it was to be an experiment in Socialism?

Mr. Pargiter: Mr. Pargiter rose—

Mr. Maudling: I am rather short of time, and I think the hon. Gentleman himself was only once interrupted.
On the question of the security of the jobs, why is it assumed, as it appears to be by the party opposite, that a private purchaser would not wish to develop the business? Obviously, the main purpose would be to develop it, because by development there would be better prospects for everybody employed in it. It is a nonsensical argument that the conditions of employment in the firm will be damaged by its disposal to private enterprise.
Secondly, it is argued that the defence requirements of the Admiralty may be affected by the disposal of this firm. It is said that it was retained in 1946 because it was part of the war potential, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has pointed out that times have changed a good deal since then. Now, we have no longer the concept of a war potential as needing reserve capacity available for rapid ex-

pansion in time of war. With the advent of nuclear weapons, that time has surely passed away. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to retain this firm as valuable war potential, any more than we retained other firms as war potential.
The defence interest is in the ability of the Admiralty to buy the equipment which it wants, and which they can now buy from other firms. Therefore, I see no reason whatever why the disposal of this firm should prevent the Admiralty from buying the equipment which they want from it. To follow up what was said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), if it is argued that defence needs can only be supplied from nationalised industries, presumably the party opposite, if returned to power, intends to nationalise all the industries from which any defence equipment is bought.

Mr. Mikardo: I only wish that what the right hon. Gentleman was saying were true, but it is not. He has misquoted me. What I said was that the Civil Lord must face the reverse side of his own argument. If he says that if the Government do not need a product, its manufacture must be private, he must face the fact that the reverse argument is that if they do need it, that is a case for public ownership. He made the case, not I.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend would not fall into the simple errors of hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend said that the case for retaining it on the ground of war potential no longer existed. It is no longer a reason for retaining this company in Government ownership that it is part of our war potential. It will be just as possible for the Admiralty to buy what it requires from this firm if it passes out of Admiralty ownership.
Then there is the question of monopoly. The Government have recognised that it would be bad if a monopoly were created as a result of the disposal of this firm, and, therefore, we have said that that is one of the conditions that we shall make for any sale.
Finally, there is the position of the taxpayer and the question of the method of disposal of this asset, which is a national asset, as hon. Members opposite say. Of course, it is a national asset, but all thriving industry of this kind is a national asset. This happens to be a State


asset as well, or a taxpayers' asset, and though we are disposing of it—not handing it back, which is a meaningless phrase, but are to sell it—we shall obtain the best price we can; and unless we can obtain a satisfactory price it will not be sold. That has been made quite clear by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me why we are selling it by private treaty. He should know a little more about this phraseology. Sale by private treaty is the normal alternative to public issue. If we had a public issue in this case, we should not be able to obtain the guarantees about the continuity of the business for which we ask. It is clear, and the advice of those with knowledge in these matters confirms it, that we are more likely to obtain a satisfactory price from a sale by private treaty, because a private treaty sale will be competitive. There will be public tenders. Anyone will be entitled to tender, and that was the purpose of the announcement in the House.

Mr. H. Wilson: Was there a public tender in the case of the Suez Canal shares? It was that case which raised our suspicions about this one.

Mr. Maudling: That seems to me to be a particularly red herring. I am answering—indeed, I have answered—the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked me—one, the serious and important question as to why this

company is being disposed of by private treaty. Private treaty means competitive private treaty, like the sale of a house or of any other chattel. There has been a public announcement that it is to be sold. We shall be happy to receive inquiries from anyone and we will hope to dispose of it at a satisfactory price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sacrifice?"] I notice that at this stage of the debate the Opposition are beginning, as usual, to prefer noise to argument.

The fact is that this case has been argued by the party opposite solely on doctrinal grounds. It became apparent why they did not wish to see this asset sold. It came out in the speech of the hon. Member for Southall and in an intervention by the hon. Member for Newton. It was made perfectly clear that they do not want this firm sold, because they regard it as an experiment in Socialism, to be pursued at the cost of the taxpayer, the Admiralty, the firm and employees, and the country.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman nearly stumbled into using the word "sacrificial", not only was his own subconscious showing but that of the whole Government.
I beg to move, That a sum not exceeding £9,358,900 be granted for the said Service.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 264.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric


Albu, A. H.
Callaghan, L. J.
Foot D. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, J.
Forman, J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Cliffe, Michael
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clunie, J.
Gibson, C. W.


Baird, J.
Coldrick, W.
Gooch, E. G.


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cronin, J. D.
Greenwood, Anthony


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benson, Sir George
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Beswick, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Diamond, John
Hastings, S.


Boardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donnelly D. L.
Healey, Denis


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Boyd, T. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edelman, M.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hilton, A. V.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holmes, Horace


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Douglas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)




Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, F. W.
Snow J. W.


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Steele, T.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Stonehouse, John


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oram, A. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Janner, B.
Orbach, M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Owen, W. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sylvester, G. O.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Thornton, E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parkin, B. T.
Tomney, F.


Kenyon, C.
Paton, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pearson, A.
Usborne, H. C.


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, G. M.
Pentland, N.
Warbey, W. N.


Ledger, R. J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Probert, A. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lewis, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.
Wigg, George


Lipton, Marcus
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Randall, H. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


McCann, J.
Rankin, John
Willey, Frederick


MacColl, J. E.
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


MacDermot, Niall
Reid, William
Williams W. R. (Openshaw)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McInnes, J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Woof, R. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Zilliacus, K.


Mikardo, Ian
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewit'm, S.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing commander E. E.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Erroll, F. J.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Fell, A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Carr, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Atkins, H. E.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Eraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Cole, Norman
Freeth, Denzil


Barber, Anthony
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glover, D.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Godber, J. B.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bidgood, J. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Knox
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Birch, Rt. Hon, Nigel
Currie, G. B. H.
Green, A.


Bishop, F. P.
Dance, J. C. G.
Grimond, J.


Black, Sir Cyril
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Deedes, W. F.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
de Ferranti, Basil
Gurden, Harold


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Braine, B. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duthie, Sir William
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George







Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ridsdale, J. E.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Robertson, Sir David


Hesketh, R. F.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Sharples, R. C.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Shepherd, William


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maddan, Martin
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Speir, R. M.


Hornby, R. P.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mathew, R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Horobin, Sir Ian
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mawby, R. L.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, John (Test)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Storey, S.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Teeling, W.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nugent, Richard
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Keegan, D.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Osborne, C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kershaw, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Kimball, M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kirk, P. M.
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Lagden, G. W.
Peel, W. J.
Wall, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Leavey, J. A.
Pitman, I. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Leburn, W. G.
Pott, H. P.
Webbe, Sir H.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Powell, J. Enoch
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Price David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Profumo, J. D.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, J. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Rawlinson, Peter
Wooliam, John Victor


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Redmayne, M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Remnant, Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, S. J.
Penton, D. L. M.
Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield

Original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the following services connected with Housing in London, namely:—

Civil Estimates, 1959–60



£


Class V. Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government)
10


Class V, Vote 2 (Housing, England and Wales)
10


Total
£ 20

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, LONDON

7.11 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is my privilege to initiate a debate on the problems of housing in London which, I think the Minister will agree, is a continuation of the debate that we had last week. Last Thursday, we discussed housing in Britain as a whole. Tonight we shall talk about the London housing problem, and in that sense it is a continuation of the earlier debate.
In concluding the debate last week the Minister said that the Opposition had no right to discuss housing matters in the House, or indeed to put down a Motion of censure, because of the Government's record on housing compared with that of the Labour Party when it was in power. When the Minister made this comparison he earned enormous cheers from his supporters. He was able to say with enthusiasm that since his party had been in power it had produced 50 per cent. more houses and flats than the Labour Party during its term of office.
I want to deal with that very point. The problem facing the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 was not that of building houses and flats but of doing war damage repairs. No one knows better than the Minister that this was so, and when he tries to compare one record with another he ought to mention, as he has never done, the factors under which the Labour Party had to govern.
I want to make a constituency point to illustrate that. In 1939 there were 19.000 houses and dwellings in Bermondsey. At the end of the war there was hardly a flat that was not damaged.

Almost every one of the 19,000 dwellings and flats was either destroyed or badly damaged. From 1945 to 1949 a courageous borough council, with a first-class direct labour force, spent its entire time—and the Minister knows this—putting back chimney pots, repairing roofs, repairing ceilings, putting back doors, repairing toilets, making it possible for people to return from the areas to which they had been evacuated. Not one flat was built during that time, but these facts must be considered when we compare figures. To say that the housing problem is now under control because this Government have been able to produce 50 per cent. more houses than we did when we were in power is not an answer to the human problems in London. If we argue the case, let us have the facts.
During the last eight years the Government have not been troubled with the problems with which we had to contend, such as a world shortage of materials and a shortage of labour, but the Government are producing only 50 per cent. more houses than the Labour Party did. The Minister received cheers last week for saying that the housing problem was broken and that it was impudence on our part to criticise the Government. As a Londoner I do not think that the Minister is doing enough, and I propose to show him why.
Local authorities in London are handicapped by the Government's policies. Not long ago the Minister decided that there would be no subsidy for housing for general needs. The subsidy was withdrawn, which meant that every local authority was faced with the problem that it could only get a subsidy if it built for slum clearance or for old people. What does that mean in terms of human beings in London? At the time when the Minister made that declaration there were 160,000 families on the L.C.C. housing list. In my own constituency, there were 1,500 families on the housing list. What happened to those lists? The Minister knows the answer. The L.C.C. virtually tore them up. It could not attempt to build flats for general needs without a subsidy.
The position today is that there are virtually thousands of families in our London constituencies—and surely Tory Members will not deny that this is the


case—who have no hope of being housed now or in the near future. My own constituency has a progressive borough council. It has one of the finest directors of housing in the country and a first-class housing committee. It tried to tackle the task. It found that in the borough council housing estates over 10 per cent. of the houses are now occupied not merely by tenants of the borough council flats but by in-laws. They are not in slums but in borough council flats that have been built since 1951. Every Friday night I have a "surgery". Young couples, often with very young children, come to me and ask whether they can get a house. They have been told at the town hall that the waiting list has been abandoned. They cannot go on the L.C.C. list because there is not one.
What is the Minister doing about such people? What future have they got? How can they get a house for themselves? The Minister might say, "Let them buy one". I do not know whether the Minister believes that that is the answer to the problem and would like to see a property-owning democracy. I am all in favour of people owning their houses, but have the Government encouraged people to buy their own houses? Look at the prices and interest rates. Before one can attempt to buy a house one must have a great deal of personal savings. The repayment charges are exorbitant. One reason why we on this side of the House intensely support local government building is because transfers can be arranged. Since 1945 my local authority has been able to arrange over 4,000 transfers from one flat to another. It means that at least 4,000 families have received happiness through living in borough council accommodation. Can that be said for private enterprise? Did those transfers take place under private enterprise? When he introduced his Rent Act the Minister said that it would bring about just that thing. Will he say that it has done so, tonight? Will he tell us how much property in the London area has become available as a result of his Act? I can give him some facts.
In my constituency, for instance, a block of flats which is owned by private landlords is still controlled, having a rateable value of less than £40. Before the Rent Act came into force flat-dwellers transferred from one flat to another. They

did not need the Minister's great genius to understand that it was sometimes advantageous to undertake these transfers. They cannot transfer now. A person living in a two-roomed flat may want to move to a three-roomed flat which has become available. Because of the Act, however, that three-roomed flat has become decontrolled, and when he applies for it he is asked for 35s. a week more than was paid by the previous tenant. But he is desperate and takes the flat. What happens to the two-roomed flat that he has left? Its rent is raised by 25s. a week.
That sort of thing has happened all over the block of flats. Everybody now knows what it will cost to move, and whereas transfers were carried on before the Rent Act was thought of they no longer take place in this block of flats, which houses about 300 families.
Now let us examine the problem of local government finance. This is a matter over which the Minister has complete control. He holds the key to that door. Each flat in a multi-storey block of flats now costs about £3,000 to build. The annual charge for servicing that flat, at 5½ per cent., for sixty years, which is the average rate, works out at £171 per annum. Over the period, therefore, the repayment on that £3,000, in interest alone, is £7,269. What a financial burden for any local authority!
My own local authority has had the courage to build flats in spite of the high interest charges, but it now owes over £5 million on housing, and nearly £250,000 has to be paid each year in respect of interest charges alone. What an encouragement to local authorities to build! What does the Minister do about it? What is his policy now'? All he says is, "Slum clearance only". In London a person is lucky if he lives in an area which is scheduled for slum clearance, but if he lives in a normal house which has no amenities—and that applies to most London houses—and is not scheduled as a slum, he has no hope. No rehousing is possible for him.
When the Rent Act was passed the Minister said that he would give landlords the opportunity to improve their properties. Whom is he kidding? There are one or two good landlords, but the vast majority apply the maximum of


twice the gross rateable value allowed under the Act while opting out of doing any interior repairs. They never did any in the past, and they do not intend to do any now, or in the future, and they have legal protection. What hope is there of modernising or improving their properties by putting in bathrooms and everything else for the tenant? The Minister knows that the only people who can do it are the local authorities. Today, in London, we have the appalling situation where thousands of our people are living in shocking conditions and where even those who are living in good conditions are overcrowded, with no hope for tomorrow.
I do not wish to say anything against the coloured people, but when a house becomes vacant for any reason in my constituency the new rent charged is quite fabulous. Who is prepared to pay such a rent? Coloured people get together because they are exploited and have no alternative and take over the house. Within a matter of days twenty or thirty coloured people move into it. They are the only ones who, between them, can afford the rent.
But who has to deal with the social problem created? Not the Minister. Who has to live with it? Not the Minister. The local authority has to deal with it and we have to live with it—not private enterprise. Private enterprise landlords let the houses. They do not care what happens about the people in the rest of the street. The Minister knows this only too well, and for him to say, "We, this great Tory Government, built 300,000 houses, which is nearly twice as many again as your Labour Government did when they were in power," is outrageous. Who are the Tories to tell us about housing? I am telling the Minister, tonight, that thousands upon thousands of our families are having to bear a greater load.
Let us have some replies from the Minister. First, we want a restoration of the general needs subsidy. Why do not we get it? Why should the local authority which can build flats for general needs not get a subsidy? Why should it be punished? Secondly, we want a preferential rate of interest for local authorities. Why should not local authorities be allowed to build with interest charges at the bare minimum?

We ask the Minister to take it from us that if private dwellings are to be renovated, improved and modernised, the job cannot be left to the whims of private enterprise.
I do not say that all private enterprise landlords are bad, but the fact is that the vast bulk of them have not the money to carry out this work, even if they want to do it. It is essential for local authorities to be able to take over the work and act as agents for the Minister. They are the only people who will be able to tackle the job on a national scale.
My final point is not concerned with party politics. It is a purely human argument. Housing is a social need. Have not we yet learned that? Today it is as essential as hospital treatment; indeed, good housing saves hospital treatment, at the end of the day. We must tackle this problem with a vast amount of imagination. When we have waiting lists of 160,000 families, and we know what the problem leaves behind it; when we are approached, as every London Member is approached—as the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) is approached—again and again by young married couples begging for flats, what answer can we give them? No local authority has a list.
The message must go out from this House tonight that the Minister will not say, "We built more than you, and that is the end of the argument." We ask him to tell the House what he proposes to do for the sort of people my hon. Friends and I represent. We ask him to give us some hope, for the first time.

7.27 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Unfortunately, housing debates tend to be a string of constituency speeches. Mine will be no exception to the rule. I can only say that it is unlikely to be published in my local newspaper next week and that the points that I hope to make have general application. I represent a constituency which is as different from that of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as can be imagined. Mine is a new constituency, on the outskirts of London. The greater part of it was built in the years between the wars, although some has been built since the last war.
The Hendon Borough Council has built, and now administers, 4,000 council houses and flats, incidentally, the majority of those dwellings are let at their full economic rent. The Exchequer subsidy is wholly devoted to the relief of needy cases under a differential rent scheme and this year the total rate contribution for the borough as a whole is rather less than £7,000.
At present, almost 100 flats are under construction and another 100 are about to be built. A certain amount of redevelopment is due to take place within the borough and I am told that this will result in some surplus of dwellings, mainly flats, but that the extreme limit that can be expected in this way is not more than one hundred. In other words, the council will have 300 more dwellings. When those are built, no sites will be left in the borough. There is nowhere on which any further building of houses can take place.
To complete the picture, I should say that new towns have taken 390 families from within the borough and I am told that about 100 more families will probably be able to be transferred to new towns before the building of new towns ceases to be of assistance to us. In other words, in one way and another, we can look forward to a maximum of 400 new houses to take our surplus population. I do not use that word in any offensive sense. All hon. Members know what I mean.
We have on our waiting list—I inquired yesterday—2,602 families, of whom, I am told, about 2,000 are hard-core cases. That is to say, they are all married, they nearly all have children and they have all been living within the borough for five years. They are cases in which there is genuine overcrowding and they are almost entirely weekly wage earners.
That is the picture of the area. It means that at least 5,000 human beings, in an area quite unlike Bermondsey, have no prospect whatever of getting a house within the borough. They cannot go south into London, for obvious reasons. They cannot go east or west, because there are similar conditions elsewhere, and they cannot go to the north because of the Green Belt. The last argument that I wish to bring forward is that we should infringe on the Green Belt. I am

certain that the Green Belt policy is right and I have defended it against those who have upbraided me somewhat strongly for doing so for reasons which I understand, but with which I disagree.
The present situation is, therefore, bad enough. It will grow worse and it will do so largely because of the action of the largest landlord within the borough. The London County Council owns 4,000 houses in Hendon. Those houses were built between the wars. The families of the young people who were moved into them twenty-five years or so ago have grown up and are now getting families of their own. They are perforce living with their in-laws, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey described.
It is, however, the deliberate policy of the London County Council to refuse all applications from the married sons and daughters of their tenants from those houses. The vacancies in those houses are in no case filled by people living in Hendon, but in every case by people sent out from the London County Council area. In other words, the L.C.C. is decanting its surplus population into Hendon, where our position is as bad as can be found anywhere. It is being done artificially and unnaturally and it is adding to the congestion in the houses, and, incidentally, to the congestion on the railways, from which all of us suffer from time to time, even if we have a decent house to go to.
I venture to say that no private landlord could be more impersonal or calculatingly ruthless than the Labour-controlled London County Council in that direction.

Mr. Albert Evans: That is a strong statement. I understood the hon. Member to say that the London County Council does not put into vacant property in his borough the young people who live in the borough. It will, I think, be found that the rehousing policy of the L.C.C. is based upon giving to those who have the greatest need the first opportunity to be rehoused. Therefore, it seems to me that anybody rehoused by the L.C.C. in Hendon would have a greater claim to be rehoused than the other people whom the hon. Member has in mind.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I agree that that would appear to be logical and humane.


but, unfortunately, it is not the policy of the L.C.C. Its policy is quite deliberately to refuse applications from young people in overcrowded conditions in Hendon and to give priority to those coming from the centre of London. That is what is happening and I say that it is entirely wrong.
If anyone thinks that the mere handing over of our houses to local authorities would do anything to solve the problem, he had better look at conditions in Hendon and he would think again. If Middlesex were a build its own new town, under the dispensation of the London County Council the effect would be to relieve only indirectly those coming from the L.C.C. area, because there would simply be a steady flow through of these people and no genuine relief in the Hendon area itself.
I want to make one constructive suggestion. Many people would move out of north-west London if they could get a house. They are prevented from doing so not by lack of money. Many of them come to see me and say that they can afford the necessary deposit, or to pay a good rent. They are prevented not by any lack of will to make an effort, but simply by the practical difficulties of the situation.
The practical difficulty is that they have to find both a new job and a new house in the same place. A professional man can sometimes do this, but these are not professional people. They are by definition working-class people. The man has a job five and a half days a week and not very long holidays. In addition, he generally has to do overtime if he is to live in this expensive part of the country. His wife has young children to look after. These people cannot, in the nature of things, go out and search for this extremely difficult combination. I have no doubt that there are places where it is much easier to get houses and jobs together than in the north-west London area.
I want to see something done which would enable these people to find what they want. For obvious reasons, the problem cannot be tackled by local authorities. Local authorities cannot find jobs. The problem has been tackled to some extent by the new towns, but the figures which I have mentioned this

evening show to what a small extent it has been possible, and can be possible in the future, for the new town corporations to tackle it.
There is scope for some central Government machinery to be set up simply with a view to enabling these people to be put into touch with the kind of jobs-cum-facilities that may be available in different parts of the country. I have made inquiries and I do not think that any such machinery exists. Certainly, it is not known to those directly concerned, nor is it known in my local authority. I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he consider this aspect. If he can do something to help in this way, it might go a long way to help these hard-core cases.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I do not propose to follow the ruminations of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) but to deal with a specific housing situation which exists in London. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that I regret that a matter of this importance has to be dealt with in so short a space of time. Because of the shortness of the time, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs sought last Thursday to ride away with a story about the housing situation not being so bad as it was when the Conservative Party first came into power. We do not want the debate to range over that field, but I want to place on record my opinion that, whatever the housing difficulties may be in Hendon, South or in any other constituency, they must be placed at the door of private enterprise, which regarded housing as one of its own perquisites before municipalities came into this field rather than as a social necessity.
The problem in the London area was made very much worse by the war. The predecessor of the present Minister introduced the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act in 1955, which placed upon local authorities the responsibility for about 30,000 houses. They contested the matter with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and pointed out the difficulties to which the


Act would give rise. However, by March, 1960, unless something is done in the meantime to prevent it, thousands of families may be homeless as the result of that Act. It is to this aspect of the situation that I desire to call the attention of the Committee.
Many London areas, including my own, will be very badly affected by that Act. In my own area we took in more than 21,500 people during the war from all sorts of areas and rehoused them. They were largely homeless families. In addition, we put people into rest centres and billets. We had about 2,119 requisitioned properties, and about 4,100 families occupied them. By June, 1955, we had got that figure down to about 1,800 properties and 3,370 families.
This situation arose out of a national emergency for which the Government of the country should take responsibility. As it happens, it is the local authority which has had to rehouse the people and to bear the financial burden of dealing also with its own citizens who have lived there for many years. One of the defects of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, is that local authorities have to give precedence to homeless families from other areas over families who may have lived in the borough for many years.
The Minister met representatives of the local authorities in March this year and discussed this matter. Some of us are worried about the proposals made by the Minister's officials, and we have to assume that they were speaking with the full authority of the Minister. We are worried about the stress that the Minister puts upon the necessity of placing people into houses and of making the houses proof against wind and weather. We have to patch up the houses to obviate the dire consequences which the Housing Ministry imposes upon local authorities by that Act of Parliament.
Local authorities in the majority of London boroughs have done their best to deal with the problem and to settle the occupants of requisitioned property into reasonably decent homes. In the past three years my own local authority has carried out all the proposals and exhortations contained in pages 61 and 62 of the Ministry's Report. We have got house owners to take about 845

families, under Section 4 of the Act. We have bought new properties and have put people into permanent properties. About 25 per cent. of our new lettings have been given to the people who were in requisitioned property.
The remainder, about 908 properties with 1,565 units of accommodation, consists of parts of premises over shops, parts of houses, two and three rooms in houses, and older houses which should never be owned by a local authority. It is therefore difficult for us to deal with the residue of this property because of the time factor of 1960. We now have compulsory purchase orders before the Minister. My council passed them last night. One order is for 491 houses. Other properties, not in the compulsory purchase group, are London County Council places. We have in hand for purchase or lease about 76 properties. Taking the most optimistic view of the situation, we shall be left with 280 properties by March, 1960. housing 383 families.
It is most important to note that the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the Conservative Party says in "Homes of the Future" that we on this side of the Committee propose to municipalise houses while he and the Government are forcing local authorities to acquire property now which they would never think of purchasing in the ordinary way, and at a time when, by reason of their own Rent Act, the price of property has doubled or trebled. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) drew attention to what is happening in this respect.
In my own area, people who come there to live find that unscrupulous landlords and estate agents, because of the nature of their business, try to exact from prospective purchasers as much as they can take. They ask fantastic prices for short leases for houses that can take a number of families. It is difficult for the public health committee to deal with these cases. When we go into the market to purchase property to keep a roof over the heads of these victims of the war we are met with the figures of the estate agents, bumped up by the Minister's Rent Act. We are faced with the fact that conversions arising out of this situation will cost us approximately £2½ million.
The rate deficiency arising from the war is, on the Minister's calculation, £28,000 per annum. We shall have this over the next twenty years, on the basis of the Minister's own formula. Such is the rigidity of this formula and so unfair is it that my local authority will have a burden of about £56,000 every year for twenty years, or approximately an elevenpenny rate. These facts are known to the Minister. If he attempts to ride off on a general argument about housing, I must tell him that it does not apply in this case. We can all argue at the proper time on what we are going to do about future housing, but these people do not know what is to happen to them on 30th March. Are they to be prosecuted as trespassers? Are they to be turned out?
The Minister is forcing us to municipalise housing, but he is doing it in the wrong way. Discussions in the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee indicate quite clearly what is in the mind of the Minister. If a property is in a bad condition he says, "Let the local authority take it over, patch it up, make it wind- and weather-proof, and put people in it." Is this to be the reward for people who suffered as a consequence of the war? He is forcing local authorities to buy when the Rent Act has sent prices sky-high.
Under Section 11 the Minister has the right to deal with local authorities desiring to purchase single houses. By the formula he applies he in part assists a local authority financially. Local authorities, which have considerable problems in this matter, find that one of their difficulties is that the formula is so rigid. When they seek a house which is reasonably sound and endeavour to get the formula applied to it as it applies to a house which remains requisitioned, there is considerable difficulty in getting the Department to allow the local authority to buy a house in place of the one which is requisitioned. I ask the Minister to reconsider the situation in regard to the formula.
I promised not to take up too much time because my colleagues have their own constituency problems to which they want to refer. In view of what is happening to house property in London and other towns, I ask the Minister if he really expects owners to accept Section 4 tenants

when the sky is the limit with rents? Obviously, owners cannot be expected then to apply Section 4, but the Minister asks local authorities to do it and they are doing it.
I hope that in his reply the Minister will not say, as he said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) in last Thursday's debate, that he cannot talk about legislation. We want to know what is to be the position by March, 1960, and if these licencees are trespassers. The local authorities acted as agents for the Government and, by the 1955 Act, the Government passed on responsibility to them. They were not willing agents in this matter; it was a case of force majeure. We want an alteration of the formula to prevent local authorities having to charge higher rates for what should be a national burden. We say this is unfair. Those who were able and willing to take in homeless people should not be saddled with the responsibility for twenty years, a responsibility which should be accepted by the national Exchequer.
In my borough, with a waiting list of 5,750 families, there are 2,000 in urgent category A. It is absolutely damnable that we should have to tell those families, who have waited for many years, that people who came in from other areas are to take precedence over them. The Minister really must do something to agree to an extension of the date from March, 1960, in order to give a breathing space in which we can deal with this residue of cases. I have endeavoured not to get involved in a political argument as to whether private enterprise or municipal housing is the better way. I believe local authorities are the best avenue through which to provide housing, but that is by the way. I want this problem, which has arisen as a consequence of the war, to be tackled by the Minister, because it is his responsibility, to ensure the health of the community, and I hope he will take this opportunity of doing so.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Unlike so many hon. Members, I start my speech by saying that I want to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) and to add that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government


was not the Minister who brought in the derequisitioning Act of 1955. Therefore, he was not responsible for it.
During the debates on that Measure a number of us put down Amendments asking that the time limit to 1960 should be extended in respect of certain London boroughs which had received a tremendous amount of bombing. I shall not make a constituency speech except to say that my borough of Camberwell received more bombing, or, alternatively, it had more requisitioned property, than any other borough in the country. Therefore, I am well able to understand the views put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. I want to add my weight to his argument.
At the time when the Bill was going through Committee upstairs, many of us, on both sides of the Committee, representing London boroughs urged the then Minister to make some alteration in its effect on different areas. I used the analogy of a place like Chertsey which had had no bomb dropped on it and places like Camberwell, Hackney, Islington and Bermondsey which had suffered not only from bombs but from rockets and V-1s. It was then predicted that if something were not done to make a difference between one part of the country and another so that the effect of the Act would not be universal throughout the country, a time would come when these difficulties would arise. I say to the present Minister that there remains less than a year before the Act comes into operation. In Camberwell, Hackney, and probably in Lambeth, there will be tremendous difficulty in dealing with this problem.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central pointed out that it was impossible for boroughs to buy some of these properties. He spoke of difficulties with properties over shops, and there he was quite right. I am glad to know that under the Act it is possible for local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, to buy houses which licensees now occupy, provided no other arrangement can be come to with the landlord, but there is a hard core of hereditaments—I cannot call them houses or flats—which will never be dealt with.
The Minister has been very kindly and generous over the last eighteen

months in the way in which he has accepted Amendments to housing Bills, particularly the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I want to draw his attention particularly to this hard core and, therefore, I lend support to the plea of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in this respect. If we can draw the Minister's attention to this hard core, great service can be done to the local authorities and licensees who occupy such premises.
I turn for a few moments to another subject. The most amazing thing which has happened in housing in London and the big cities is the comparative absence of defections under the Rent Act. That is one of the most amazing factors about the situation. I am talking without the book and without the actual figures, but I believe that south of the river in London the number of applications for evictions under the Rent Act is under 300. That is a most remarkable figure. That being so, I suggest that, consequent on the Rent Act and the subsequent Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, the whole operation as set out and directed by my right hon. Friend has been a great success.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) was discussing the question of the shocking condition of these houses. I agree with him. As a Member of Parliament one has to fight for one's constituents. There are bad landlords, but it is quite amazing to me how many landlords have come to heel since the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act came into operation. I want to point out to my right hon. Friend and other Members of the Committee that I personally, when the Rent Act was published and discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, had certain reservations in mind as to how it would work, despite the amending Act. From my own personal experience—and I think that it is the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—in my own constituency, which I go round very regularly, I have found in scores of streets rows of houses being decorated and repaired. Hundreds of houses which are under £40 a year rateable value are being decorated and repaired consequent on the Rent Act. It is surprising to learn how landlords are now taking advantage, because of their increased


rent of twice the gross value, of improvement grants. Hundreds of houses in my constituency now have bathrooms which they never had before.

Mr. Mellish: I hope and pray that the local Press will print exactly what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Jenkins: All I can say is that that is my experience. I have discussed the matter with other hon. Members and they tell me that the same thing is happening. I could give the names of the roads, but I shall not. There are scores and hundreds of houses being decorated. That could not have happened but for the operation of the Rent Act. What is more, I have not yet found one single tenant who objects to paying twice the gross value. In the case of the old-age pensioner this is alway made up by the Assistance Board. Hon. Members opposite may object to the Assistance Board paying the extra rent and that may be fair comment, but so far as the tenants are concerned there is no objection, because they think it is fair. The best landlords and perhaps some of the not so good landlords are painting up their properties and putting them in order because they are preserving their assets.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), we have the dreadful problem in every borough in the centre of London of 5,000 or 6,000 families on the waiting lists. I do not want to denigrate some of the applications on the waiting lists, but I think that if there were a proper and thorough analysis, those in local government, as I have been for thirty years, would say that they are perhaps not all valid ones.
There is a large number still waiting for accommodation. The result of the Rent Act has been what my right hon. Friend said that it would be. Many owner-occupiers throughout the whole of London whose families have grown up and who could have let part of their houses before the Rent Act came in to small families of one, two or three, were afraid to do so because if they took in a family which turned out to be unpleasant they could not get them out and they had to take the rent which the local authority laid down. Today they are able to apply for the improvement

grant to turn part of their owner-occupied houses into flats, and thousands of new family units are being accommodated every month.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Where? Can the hon. Gentleman give the number of owner-occupiers in the London area?

Mr. Jenkins: I am afraid that I cannot. All I can say is that there is a very large number of owner-occupiers in my division, and it is happening there.

Mr. Edwards: How many?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot say. I am afraid, Mr. Bowles, that I must take a moment or two longer than I intended to give information to the hon. Gentleman. Before the Rent Act came in, many thousands of elderly people came to me, knowing that I was extremely interested in getting housing accommodation for young married couples, and asked whether I could recommend a family to them because they had two or three rooms to let. They owned the property or had a long lease on it. I told them that I had plenty of applicants of the kind they required, but I warned them, as constituents of mine, that if they let rooms and the family was unsatisfactory because they left a bicycle in the hall or one of them came in drunk, or for any other reason, they would never be able to get them out.
Today, these people are letting their premises and are prepared to spend £200 or £300 on them. I am sorry that I have to make a constituency speech, but unless I do I shall be challenged to say where else I know this is happening. I know that it is happening in the Royal Borough of Kensington and in my own division, and I know that there is a large amount of alteration of large houses into flats. Even hon. Members of this House have been doing it themselves. Another interesting point about the effect of the Rent Act which is advantageous to people who are wanting a home is that all empty properties have become derequisitioned or derestricted. As a result of that there are very few empty properties in London.
There were a great many houses empty prior to the passing of the Rent Act. When I have been asked where they were, I have quoted Croydon. I have not told hon. Members who represent


Croydon that I intended to mention it tonight. With a fair return, or perhaps a greater return, for their money from people who pay reasonable rents these houses are now being let.
I hope that the Minister will do something to publicise the existence of improvement grants. In one road which I visited in the morning of last Sunday week, to see an old couple in my constituency, I was told, "All the houses on the other side of the road have had bathrooms put in during the last twelve months. People wonder when that will be done on this side of the road." I have written to the landlord to see why he does not do the same thing, and I hope that, as a result of pressure by the hon. Member for Dulwich, he may be persuaded to make these improvements. That may particularly be the case since I have been challenged on it and since he will be able to read what I have said. Probably it will be done.

Mr. W. Edwards: Why not get the Minister to do it?

Mr. Jenkins: If my right hon. Friend wants more improvement schemes, why is there not more publicity about them? These schemes were first introduced in a minor way by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when he was Minister of Health, and they did not go very well. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also introduced these schemes, and they have been added to since. For a family to have a bathroom, indoor lavatory and other amenities provided in the house is a wonderful thing. It does not make a new home but it makes the existing home agreeable to live in, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay maximum attention to seeing that publicity is given to these valuable schemes. It is a non-party matter. Let us be frank about it. The idea came from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It has been carried on since. It is a wonderful thing for people who all their lives have had to take their baths in the municipal baths to be provided with a bathroom in their own home as a result of money advanced by the local authority on behalf of the Government.

Mr. A. Evans: I agree that it is good to see modern amenities being provided, but

the hon. Member must appreciate that when old houses are supplied with modern amenities it reduces the amount of housing accommodaion available.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that introducing such amenities as a bathroom does not normally increase the accommodation.

Mr. Evans: It decreases it.

Mr. Jenkins: Nevertheless, it makes the accommodation far more pleasant for the people who live there. Perhaps I have confused one thing with another. What I was trying to suggest was not that there was more accommodation but that the existing accommodation was improved.
I urge my right hon. Friend to give serious atention to the point which I made about improvement grants. A number of my hon. Friends and I were opposed to the Rent Bill as originally presented and we welcomed the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act because it had a mitigating effect upon possible bad consequences of the Rent Act. As a Member for a London constituency I am deeply concerned about housing, but I think that the Rent Act has been a roaring success, that the Minister was right to carry it through and that he was right to amend it in order to prevent hardship. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are infinitely more housing units available in the County of London today because of my right hon. Friend's action in introducing the Rent Act than there would have been if he had not introduced it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I had always imagined that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) represented Dulwich, but it appears from his speech that he represents either Utopia or Paradise. He said that he was setting out to make a constituency speech. That was a necessary explanation, because the facts which he gave certainly do not represent the situation as far as I know it in any other part of London. I sometimes regret that the proportion of private landlords in my constituency who have a sense of their social responsibilities is not higher that, in fact, it is, but I now understand the reason, for apparently all good landlords are in the hon. Member's constituency. I wish that some of them


could be persuaded to acquire properties in other parts of London and behave in the way in which he described.
I believe that the crux of this gigantic and terrible problem is that the general line of Government policy for a long time has been to make it increasingly difficult for local authorities to play their part. The Government have done that in the belief that private landlordism, encouraged by the Rent Act, would solve the problem. That has been fundamentally the argument upon which the Government have been acting and that is the argument which has been so tragically disproved.
We have refrained from taking up time this evening to describe cases with which we are all familiar, such as that of a family living in one room, or a family where husband and wife have to live separately, or a family which, throughout its married life, has had to live precariously in one furnished room, never knowing when it will be put out on the street. The fact that we have not laboured these cases does not mean that we are not all bitterly aware of them.
The point which I want to make is that on the evidence there is no ground for the assumption, on which the Government are proceeding, that private landlordism, encouraged by the Rent Act, will do so much to solve the problem that we can go on discouraging the local authorities from doing their job.
What are the respects in which private landlordism, in the main, falls down? I say "in the main" because everyone agrees that we can find a number of private landlords with a genuine sense of social responsibility who do the job properly. We must, however, judge the institution of private landlordism as a whole by the general and usual results which it produces. The results which it appears to be producing are shown by the fact that, despite the Rent Act, I can find in my constituency no sign that the number of properties available for rent which will meet the needs of the people who come to see me on Friday after Friday is increasing at all.
In particular, there seems to be no willingness on the part of private landlords to offer accommodation for rent where there are young children in the family. That is often where the con-

sequences of the family being ill-housed and overcrowded are the most serious and the most long-lasting. There also seems to be very little willingness on the part of private landlordism to facilitate exchanges. I know quite a number of housing problems in which we could reach a solution fairly simply if only the private landlord would agree to accept in place of his present tenant someone from the council list.
I do not ask that he should accept anyone whom the council nominates. He should be given a reasonable opportunity of several refusals if the first tenants offered are not to his liking. During the passage of the Rent Act, if I remember correctly, the Government were urged to make the benefits of the Act available to a landlord only if he were co-operative in such respects as this. They would not agree. We have a string of unnecessarily unsolved problems in consequence.
There is a continued failure in general to accept the responsibilities of being a landlord. Owning a house is not the same thing as owning a pair of shoes. It carries social responsibilities with it.
Turning to the question of improvements, the Minister knows that the Borough of Fulham has done a good deal to publicise the powers which it possesses in this respect to encourage private landlords to obtain improvement grants and to carry out the work. The Minister himself visited the borough and admired the scheme in that connection. Nevertheless, there is still a tremendous number of properties where the landlord, who should obviously be taking advantage of that facility, shows not the smallest sign of doing so.
I have tried occasionally to remind private landlords of their responsibilities, and the not uncommon answer is that landlordism is not a philanthropic institution. Hon. Members will notice the word "institution". So many landlords nowadays are not persons, but companies. Sometimes, even though they are persons, a local authority cannot find out who they are. One often has the experience of a local authority trying to meet its responsibilities by acquiring properties by compulsory purchase and finding the delay in the process accentuated by difficulty in finding who the owner actually is.
I should like to make it part of the law that not merely the name of the agent, someone to whom the rent is to be paid, but the name of the legal owner should be on the rent book. That would be a useful addition to the law so that there would not be the slightest difficulty in a public authority finding the owner of a property, who could be called to account if he did not fulfil his responsibilities.
It is because of these failures on the part of private landlordism that local authorities are required to do far more than Tory philosophy wants them to do. It is now accepted on both sides of the Committee that it is the duty of a local housing authority to clear slums. It is, apparently, the one task to be done by local authorities for which the present Government show any enthusiasm. Slum clearance, in the strict legal sense of doing work which will now attract subsidy, is practically completed in my borough. Therefore, our task of doing work which will not impose a rather heavy burden on either ratepayers or tenants is ended.
In addition, a local authority can, and should, carry out what is really redevelopment work. For example, a local authority may be concerned with a mainly residential area in which here and there is situated a factory with light industry. The owners of the factory may be prepared to sell it and the local authority may want to redevelop the area and provide more residential accommodation. It will receive no subsidy for that kind of work, yet it will be doing something which not only solves its own housing problem, but makes London as a whole better developed and more civilised. There ought to be a subsidy for that kind of work.
Further, owing to the failure of private landlordism and the growing immobility of tenants, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) so well described as one result of the Rent Act, the local authority is, in effect, now looked to by practically everyone who is badly or inadequately housed as the body who should deal with his problem. It is no good hon. Members reciting to the people who come to see them the tenets of Tory philosophy and saying that, now that the Rent Act is

passed, private landlordism will deal with the matter. These persons know perfectly well that private landlordism will not. They tend to regard local authorities as responsible for general need housing, for which the Minister will give no help and for which for a long time Government policy, both over subsidies and over interest rates, has made the task of local authorities increasingly more difficult.
I do not hope to persuade the Minister to change Tory philosophy in general on those topics, but the right hon. Gentleman might be able to do one thing. When a local authority submits a housing project for the approval of the Ministry, my information is that very often it genuinely has no means of knowing what sort of yardstick the Ministry uses in deciding whether the project at a given cost can be approved. The local authority has to go to all the trouble of preparing the project and putting it out to tender while genuinely not knowing, however much experience it has, whether the project will be approved. When the Ministry is considering what is the proper cost for a building project, it is sometimes inclined to urge on the local authority things which any experienced local director of housing knows are false economies in order to reduce the immediate cost without any regard to the subsequent burden of maintenance. I quote as examples whether tiling should be put in the kitchen and what quality paint should be used in the kitchen. I ask the Minister to look at the delay, uncertainty and false economy which sometimes emerge from Ministry policy.
In conclusion, I can fairly claim that my own borough has done its best to solve the problem of derequisition. In 1957, we had about 1,000 units of accommodation on requisition. By February of this year that figure has been—not exactly cut clown to 400, but we were safely able to say that we should be left with no more than 400 in March, 1960. The most recent information I have is that we expect to be left with no more than 200 units of accommodation in 1960. Those 200 units are units to which one can find no apparent solution. What will happen to those people? Solving all these problems is not only a question of money, buildings and finding accommodation. It


uses up the time of the staff of local authorities.
What most of us object to is that the Government's general policy has been based on the assumption that private landlordism can do the job and that, therefore, the Government can cut down the help given to local authorities, but the result of a great deal of what the Government have been doing has been to pile more and more work and duties on to those very local authorities.

8.26 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: Inevitably in a debate of this kind we tend to look at things through the eyes of our own constituents. Probably it is well that that should be so, because the problems created by housing shortage in London—it must be so in other parts of the country—are extremely human problems which come home very close to most of us as Members of Parliament. I do what I expect other hon. Members do. I try to visit the home of each person who comes to me with a housing problem, because it is only by visiting them in their own homes that one can accurately assess their need and the strength of their story.
I doubt if we are doing full justice to the human nature of the problem with which we are faced if we try to extract the maximum of party capital out of the discussion of these problems in the House of Commons. No one can deny that there was an immense surge forward in building, particularly in house building, over the period 1951 to 1954. If any Government are attacked on their housing record, there is every reason why they should fall back on what was one of the most remarkable developments of housing in this country over that sort of period. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that basically we have still to solve the hard core of this problem in London. There is no question about that. I do not believe that we shall solve it by flinging party insults and little party points from one side of the Chamber to the other.
Part of our trouble is that London is still growing, and until we can find some way—if, indeed, it will ever be humanly possible—of stopping the growth of London, we shall perpetually find that the magnet of the capital will attract

people from the rest of the country at a rate faster than that at which we can provide the necessary housing accommodation.
One obstacle to a good housing policy in London has not yet been mentioned, and although to overcome it is not easy, it has to be faced. I hope that it will be faced by the Royal Commission now considering London government. The obstacle is the fact that we have two tiers of housing authorities. The London County Council is a housing authority and so—with the exception, I think, of the City of Westminster—is every Metropolitan borough.
That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It leads, or has led, to competition for land. It leads to the local people feeling that those who come in under a London County Council scheme—possibly from much worse conditions than those into which they are moved—are, nevertheless, foreigners who are taking land that really belongs to the borough. It leads to two rent systems. Most of the boroughs have a rent rebate scheme by which they adjust the rent according to their assessment of the needs of the family. The London County Council refuses to have a rent rebate scheme. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory to have, within the same area, two public authority rent schemes running.
Worse than anything else, we get the individual family shuffled between the two local authorities and not really knowing whether it should put its pressure on the town hall or on County Hall. Until that problem is solved, until the responsibility is squarely put either on the county council or—as in my view it ought to be—on the borough, we shall have a second-best housing policy in the city. I hope that the Royal Commission will tackle that—

Mr. C. W. Gibson: It has nothing to do with the Royal Commission.

Sir H. Linstead: With great respect, it may not have anything to do with the Royal Commission, but the fact remains that the Commission has been receiving a considerable amount of evidence from the boroughs on those lines, and I hope that its Report will not ignore that aspect.
The situation that we have had to face in the last two or three years has been an easing up of private house building


and a devotion of our resources to schools, factories, offices and hospitals. From the national point of view, that change of emphasis has probably been justified, but in my own part of the Metropolis and in those parts of it that I know I should have thought that the development of offices and factories had now reached the stage at which we were justified in again turning back our building resources w the hard core of our housing problem.
In assessing the cure for some of our difficulties, I would not underestimate the conversion of the old house. As the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) has said, one can represent conversion as patching up and making a house windproof and weatherproof, but that is not what is meant by really good conversions, and need not be the result of them. In Wandsworth and, I imagine, in others of the Metropolitan boroughs, there are good, sound Edwardian—and even Victorian—houses that are perfectly capable of being turned into good modern flats, and we should be stupid to pull down those houses in order to replace them with modern ones. I am sure that the emphasis put on the conversion of the sound old house is a simple and sensible way of still further helping the housing problem.
I do not take quite so serious a view as have some hon. Members of the Minister's derequisitioning policy. It is true that my right hon. Friend has had to fix a date and has had to appear to be putting the screw fairly tightly on local authorities. Had he not done so, I am sure that he would not have succeeded in getting them to take action. It may be that at the last he will have to make some modification, but I am sure that too early an indication that March, 1960, did not, in fact, mean March, 1960, would have resulted, in two or three boroughs that I know of, in the borough council sitting back and not making an attempt to reduce requisitioning to manageable figures. When we find that in Hackney the number of requisitioned properties is down to 350, in Fulham it is down to 200 and in Wandsworth, which had probably the largest of the requisition problems, the number is down from over 2,000 to about 700, it is clear that the policy of being tough with the local authorities has paid dividends.
What may happen between now and March is a matter which obviously needs to be watched. In my part of the world, at any rate, the major need at the moment is slum clearance. It may be that Fulham is fortunate and has completed its programme, but that is not the case in Wandsworth, and if there is a point at which Ministerial pressure from now onwards should be directed in my constituency, it is slum clearance. I am sure it has got to be regarded as a crusade. We have got to instil into the minds of local authorities that this is not a leisurely job to be dealt with as it suits them, at a certain pace, but that it is a substantial and final attack on the hard core of the housing problem, for in many parts of London there is still a slum clearance problem which local authorities have not always tackled with the vigour and enthusiasm which they should have shown.
In addition to whatever other methods my right hon. Friend may have in mind for building up a further and, I would hope, a last drive in dealing with this problem, I put the slum clearance problem at the very heart of the situation locally. Once that is broken, I believe that we shall find that, with the conversions which are following the Rent Act, we shall have met most of the needs in the area with which I am concerned.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that we had reached the hard core of the problem. That would give most people the impression that we had reached the hard core and that it was a small one. In fact, the situation in London is very bad and it is getting worse, in spite of the tremendous efforts which have been made by the housing authorities in London to build since the end of the war.
Over 258,000 houses have been built in the Greater London area, but those figures do not give the Minister much satisfaction because whereas last week he was talking about private enterprise having built one for one, in London the proportion is 2½ municipal houses to every I built by private enterprise and that built for selling, as can be observed by those who go around and see these houses.
That does not solve the problem. It is difficult to get the exact figures, but we know that there are well over 150,000 people on the waiting list. In fact, I would say that there are 200,000, taking London as a whole. Certainly over 50,000 of them are urgent cases who cannot at present be rehoused from the general housing list because of the policy of the Government of stopping subsidies on general housing, and, as a result, practically killing the building of general houses in the London area.
The authorities are getting on with slum clearance and are doing fairly well with the number of houses they have closed and the number of families they have rehoused, though it must be remembered that when a slum house is pulled down there is not only one family to rehouse. Normally there are at least two, and sometimes three, families. So that the housing problem as such, when one is dealing with slums, is infinitely more difficult than it is when dealing with an area in which the houses are occupied by one family only.
Another significant factor seems to me to be this. I checked this on one occasion when I was chairman of a housing committee. A very small proportion of people who live in slum houses are on the council's waiting list. On checking one big scheme in the south of London, I found that only 5 per cent. of the tenants in an area which everyone agreed ought to be cleared were on the council's waiting list. The waiting lists, bad as they are, do not really reveal the whole problem. It is something very much more than a mere hard-core problem. What we need in London is authority to go ahead to build as quickly as we can, and financial assistance should be given to the councils to enable them to do so.
Although it is a little off what I wanted to say, I was amazed to find in the Ministry's Annual Report that the tender cost for a three-roomed house is more now than it was in 1951, in spite of the fact that the houses are 150 sq. ft. smaller. The cost per square foot has gone up by 7s. 11d. since 1951. This, also, has added very considerably to the difficulties of local authorities in London.
The local authorities have done very well in very difficult circumstances, but

they are now finding—this is part of the problem spoken of by the hon. Member for Putney—that there is a shortage of sites. People are not content to live in the tightly packed conditions in which they used to live when I was a young boy. They want wide spaces and air. One cannot blame them for that. Indeed I think that we should encourage them in that desire. However, it does cause a problem for local authorities because they have to find more land.
On the general question of London housing, I suggest to the Minister that he ought to be very much more cooperative in giving authority for sites to be acquired outside the London area, not only by the London County Council but by some of the other local authorities, too. If he does not, they will never be able to solve their problem.
As things are now, I cannot see a glimpse of a solution to the housing problem of London within the next two generations. We must have financial assistance, encouragement and help from the Ministry in the acquisition of sites outside our own borough areas. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he has given the London County Council an opportunity of taking up a new town. That is quite true, but it takes an uncomfortably long time to acquire the site. Inevitably, all sorts of objections are raised, and it takes several years before such a project can be effective.
It would be far better and quicker if sites could be made available, as they were immediately after the war, for the authorities of London to build the many more houses which are needed and in order to reduce the 50,000-odd chronic cases on the waiting lists. There is chronic overcrowding. Chronic illness and chronic family troubles are created because people have to live with in-laws, and so forth, and there is all the time the chronic problem of bad housing conditions.
The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) spoke about the landlord doing repairs and not taking full advantage of the Rent Act. I did not like to interrupt him because of the time, but I must tell the Committee that I am at the moment arguing with one of the largest property companies in this country which is still charging the tenant the full


2¼ times the gross rateable value for a flat in respect of which a certificate of disrepair is still in operation. I found it out only last week or I should have been after that landlord before. I shall be after his blood in a few days. That sort of thing is happening not in one case but in many cases all over London.
I come now to what I regard as the most urgent problem for us in London, namely, the derequisitioning of properties. The latest figures that I can obtain show that on 30th April there were over 16,000 families still living in requisitioned properties. Some boroughs, of course, have an extremely difficult problem. For Wandsworth, for instance, to which the hon. Member for Putney referred, I happen to have the official figures supplied by the town clerk, so I hope they are right.
I am informed that up to the current date the Wandsworth Borough Council has 1,411 families living in what are called "requisitioned units", which may mean two or three in a house. The council considers that 1,120 of those units will have to be bought by compulsory purchase orders because the landlords in every case have refused to accept statutory tenancies. They have all been given the opportunity by letter from the council. The council has already secured compulsory purchase orders for 755 of the units.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Municipalisation.

Mr. Gibson: That is municipalising property, but we are not arguing about that.
That still leaves 311 units or families in respect of which the council has not yet passed a compulsory order resolution. Anyone who knows the difficulty of carrying out compulsory order procedure, even with the blessing of the Minister—he has given his blessing in this case, though rather late in the day—knows that it will be a tremendous job to get all these through before March next year.
The council decided that it could not do it. Therefore, it sent a deputation to the Minister towards the end of last year. It saw not the Minister but the Parliamentary Secretary. It asked the hon. Gentleman to defer the date when

final requisitioning had to stop. The answer that it got was a cold "No". Nothing was to be done and, as far as I know, nothing has been done. What some of us are afraid of is that when next March conies there will be hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of families who will be trespassers in the homes in which they live, who can be turned out, and who, if they are not turned out, will be a tremendous burden upon their borough council. It is an imposition which the Minister ought not to place on the borough councils.
In Wandsworth it is a case of buying the houses, many of which are really not fit to buy and, in the normal course of events, would not be bought because of their condition. To buy all these already requisitioned houses in Wandsworth and to complete the job before March next will cost the borough council £1¼ million. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) says that it will cost Hackney more than £2 million. There are 13 or 14 London boroughs which have fairly large numbers of requisitioned premises still to be taken over.
This is a problem to which the Minister ought to give immediate attention for the benefit of the London people. In general, I do not think that London has anything in respect of housing for which to thank the Tory Government or their Minister of Housing. The number of houses built in London has declined since the right hon. Gentleman became Minister, and opportunities of rehousing have become fewer. It is no use saying that this is not a political matter. It is inevitably a political matter. Anything which affects the life and happiness of ordinary people is a political matter.
We are entitled to complain that in the largest city in the world, in an area which embraces one-fifth of the population of the country—more than 10 million people—we still have hundreds of thousands of poor devils who cannot get the kind of house in which they would like to live because neither private enterprise nor, as the result of Government policy, the local authorities can build the houses. If the Minister wants to make himself sweet with the London authorities he should immediately do something to ease the situation which we shall all face in connection with the derequisitioning problem next March.

8.49 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that the Government have not been successful in their housing programme in that the number of houses built recently in London has declined, and the opportunities for rehousing are fewer.
Earlier in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. H. Lucas-Tooth) drew attention to the position in his constituency. He pointed out that when the present building was completed, there would be virtually no more sites available for building. Surely, that is the answer to the hon. Member for Clapham.
In my constituency, St. Marylebone, we are placed in the same situation as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. There is virtually no more room left on which to build. People want to live in London. In my constituency a great many people, quite naturally, want to live there, because it is quite the best place in London in which anybody could want to live—

Sir Leslie Plummer: What about Hampstead?

Sir W. Wakefield: After all, we have got a very fine park in Marylebone. We have the Zoo, Lord's Cricket Ground, Madame Tussaud's for hon. Members opposite, perhaps, and, if we are not feeling very well, plenty of doctors in Harley Street and Wigmore Street.
The fact is that no more space is available for housing in Central London. It is also a fact that more space would have been available for housing in Marylebone, and, indeed, still could be, if the policy of the L.C.C. on density were altered. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to take up this matter with the L.C.C. In St. Marylebone, we have places where valuable reconstruction could have been carried out, but which has been prevented because of this density ruling. Certain buildings could have been built higher without in any way spoiling amenities, but providing extra places for people where they want to live and near to their work. The L.C.C. policy on density has stopped that.
I suggest that in certain cases, particularly in my own constituency, in which we have the great spaces of Regent's Park, Primrose Hill, and so on, this density ruling should be reviewed. An alteration would make a small contribution, and I am not suggesting for a moment that it will be anything but a small contribution. I am not in a position to speak about the constituencies of other hon. Members, but it may well be that this L.C.C. ruling is preventing private building and possibly municipal building from going as high as it could do. Therefore, I suggest that because of the limitation of space in central London, the Minister should take up this matter with the L.C.C., with a view to that body reconsidering the whole question of density.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the overcrowding caused by coloured people coming into this country; and this raises a very serious problem. Is it right that so many of these coloured people and others from overseas should plant themselves in London when our own people, for reasons of lack of space, have inadequate housing? I know that housing is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but the question of the restriction into this country, and into London in particular, of people from overseas is the responsibility of others of his colleagues in the Government.
While London's housing difficulty exists—and it has been admitted in speeches from both sides of the Committee that it will be extremely difficult to resolve it—this continued influx of people from overseas must be studied, for there is a very sound reason for limiting it while this housing shortage continues.

Mr. A. Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman apply his limitation to the entry of coloured physicians and professional people, some of whom, although few, live in his constituency?

Sir W. Wakefield: There are some such people, for instance, students. I was merely drawing attenton to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, that overcrowding was caused by an influx of people from overseas. I am suggesting that that influx might with advantage be limited, since


that limitation would help towards a solution of the overcrowding problem, which is rightly causing anxiety on both sides of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey said that it was unfair that the Labour Government should be criticised for not having built as many houses as did their successors, the Conservative Party. He said that after the war there was much repair work to be done. That is quite true, but after two or three years of repairs there was ample opportunity for houses to be built faster than was, in fact, the case. They did not go up faster because of the Socialist policy of controls, restriction and prevention.
When, at Blackpool, the Conservative Party called for 300,000 houses a year, hon. Gentlemen opposite sneered and said that that was just a pure hoodwinking of the electorate and that such a production was impossible, since they had been able to build only 200,000 houses. But the Conservative policy of freeing the builders and removing controls and restrictions resulted in a great development in building. That could have been achieved during the last year or two of Socialist administration. The Conservative Government's policy resulted in a great expansion of building and all kinds of activity, great advance and great progress which had not been made under Socialistic control and restrictions. I leave that thought with hon. Members opposite.

8.58 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Brevity is a difficult duty for all of us tonight. I will only associate myself with many of the arguments which have been made by my hon. Friends. However, I do want to refer to the general need subsidy, which is the most important contribution which the Minister could make tonight. It is absurd to suggest that slum clearance goes on any more quickly because local authorities are simultaneously deprived of their general need subsidies.
Whether people are living in slum conditions is not always a question of whether the building in which they are housed is technically a slum. There are hundreds of families in my constituency living in houses which are not in bad condition but which were intended for single-

family occupation. They will never be scheduled as slums, but in those houses people are living in slum conditions because there is a family to every room, the baby having to be bathed on the table where a grammar schoolboy is trying to do his homework and the family washing having to dry over the heads of the parents trying to eat their supper. Those are things which make slums of people's lives. That in the heart of this great city in this nuclear age we have families living their lives in such utterly primitive conditions is a disgrace.
The Minister is responsible not only for housing but also for planning. Many complaints that we have to make tonight arise from the failure of the Government to deal imaginatively with the planning problems of Central London. At the end of the war there was a tremendous opportunity for bold and exciting developments. That has happened to a certain extent and the County of London plan was, in many ways, a splendid vision of what could be made of our capital city.
There are one or two ways in which the plan needs to be revised. This is a quinquennial year when the plan is due for revision, and I hope that the Minister will permit me to say that in the context of the London housing problem it is his urgent duty to look at the ways in which the plan could be altered to deal with the problem.
Not only has this terrible housing problem been unsolved in Central London, but the whole character of the Metropolis is being distorted. There has been too much emphasis on office and institutional building, and far too few people will be able to live in the centre of our great city. At the weekend one can go for a walk in pants of my constituency and just meet a cat and a caretaker and the rest of the area is like a graveyard.
Between 1921 and 1951 there was a drop of 50 per cent. in the residential population of Holborn, but the working population increased by 127 per cent. What we are doing in Central London is sending people to live further and further away from where they have to work and making it possible for fewer and fewer people to live near their work. I estimate that over 1 million people pour into the central area from outside every


day at tremendous cost in wear and tear and human health and happiness.
Since the war the Minister has agreed to 40 million sq. ft. of new office building in the central area. In addition, he has given permission for 6 million sq. ft. of building that was previously residential to be used for offices. It is not enough for the L.C.C. or the Minister to adopt the policy of gentle persuasion to get builders to go outside London with their office blocks. I ask the Minister to put a stop to any more office building in the central area.
To stop office building in Central London would create no hardship. All round the central area one sees signs "Offices to let". We are in danger of over-building in the central area and we are putting an impossible strain on the transport services. Also, at every point at which an office block is erected people are deprived of the possibility of building houses for residential purposes.
The Minister may say that he is encouraging a new policy of mixed development and encouraging firms to include a few flats in the office blocks. That is happening in one or two developments in my constituency. What kind of rents are being asked for these flats? This development may be socially desirable in some way which I do not understand. This kind of accommodation may provide pieds-à-terre for the directors of the company in the offices below, but it will make no contribution to the housing problems of the people of Central London.
Not only do we think that too many new offices are being built in the central area, but there is another relevant abuse which I should like the Minister to deal with. It concerns houses which continue to be used as offices and could contribute literally hundreds of homes for our people. Every weekend when I go round beautiful squares like Bedford Square and Bloomsbury Square, which should be the village greens of central London, I find them deserted. I always think what a tragedy it is that the houses all round are shut up owing to the fact that they are used as offices. It is no good telling me that these houses are not suitable for residential occupation, because I live in one. I can assure the Minister that they can be readily converted into flats in which people will enjoy living.
This situation has arisen because many of the office users were in possession before the present legislation was passed and user rights were established. If someone has once misused a house I cannot see why that house must be misused in perpetuity. The misuse attaches not only to the original occupier; when he moves out a board is placed outside reading. "House to let as offices," and somebody else moves in to carry on the office use. In Doughty Street, which used to be a very pleasant residential street—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) was born there—I recently counted 60 business plates. Streets like Great James Street and John Street, famous old Bloomsbury streets, should be used for their rightful purpose. People should be living in them.
I know that this would need legislation, but it would be very simple legislation, which we should not oppose. The Uthwatt Committee recommended that non-conforming users should be set a time limit. That recommendation has never been carried out. Some of the streets that I have mentioned may be in areas scheduled for continued office use, but in many cases houses are being misused in areas scheduled for residential use. It would be a great help to the central area if the Minister could compile a register of non-conforming users and bring back some of these houses into residential use.
I now turn to the requisitioning problem. The Holborn Borough Council, whose members who are nearly all good friends of the Minister, has tried very hard to deal with the requisitioning problem in a way which will not embarrass him, but even if it has 100 per cent. success in its endeavours it will be left with over 100 families in March. In St. Pancras, where our affections for the Minister are a little less faithful, over 250 families will be left in March. There is no prospect of our dealing with them.
It is no use the Minister saying that we must use the accommodation that we shall be building in order to house these people. In 1959 we hope to build 466 units of accommodation, but our decants amount to 453. Next year we shall complete 582 units, but our de-cams will be 587. On most of our


schemes we are now showing a net loss, so that our waiting list becomes more and more an unreality and a nightmare to those who have to administer it and do the pitiful arithmetic—pitiful in terms of human misery—involved in calculating the points for this or that disability or disadvantage.
The Minister has said that legislation would be needed to extend the date. I want to make what is a rather bold prophecy for a back bencher. I suggest that such legislation would not be opposed by my hon. and right hon. Friends. It would be welcomed. It is something which the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee has asked for, and I hope that on this aspect of the problem at least the Minister will have something sympathetic and helpful to say.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): In fairness to the Minister, I should like to make clear that if he answers that question he will be out of order.

9.10 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: This debate has been an extremely interesting one, though we have been a little tempted to inject into it too much politics.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), for whom we all have a high regard and a great affection, posed the problem of London housing not as a matter of figures and statistics, but as a great human problem. That, indeed, is what it is and must be to all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit. We are all familiar with the kind of case that the hon. Member described—the desperate case of people who come out and say, "What can I do?" Our answer nearly always has to be, "We really do not know." [HON. MEMBERS: "We know."] There are some extremely able people in this Committee who know the answer to most problems.
The fact is that the problem of housing in a great city like London is virtually insoluble, certainly within a considerable time. My own constituency, Westminster, is one in which, by its nature, there never have been, there are not and there never will be as many houses as people want. There is constant pressure

on every bit of housing accommodation that ever could be erected in Westminster, however it is planned and however the accommodation is designed.
The fact that the problem is so difficult is, however, certainly no excuse for wasting time in talking about what one party did or the other party did not do. We must face the facts and face them honestly. I do not think that we get any nearer a solution by following the extremely attractive and interesting line of thought of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger). It is a beautiful ideal, but the people of London have not only to live in houses; they have also to eat and earn their living.
London is a place not for people to inhabit. Primarily, it is the centre of the nation's, and, indeed, of the world's, commercial activities. We must have office space. When the hon. Lady says that there is any amount of office space to let, I assure her that she is completely wrong.

Mrs. Jeger: Come out with me.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: May I point out that I have thrown away the whole of the speech that I proposed to make had I been called, because my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) has covered practically all of it? It is wrong to suggest that there are no vacant offices in, for example, Finsbury, whose loss in rates last year due to vacant offices represented 5 per cent. of its total rate income.

Sir H. Webbe: The hon. Lady was speaking about Central London. To me, that means the City and the West End. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] From the point of view of commerce and commercial users, that is the centre of London. It is no use anyone pretending otherwise.
The simple fact is that when offices are being rebuilt, as they have had to be since the war, we cannot put back offices of the same type as those which were knocked down. We cannot expect office staffs to work packed as tightly as they were before the war. They, too, must have improved conditions if they are to be efficient. That means, inevitably, that we must give more sq. ft. per person in the offices and because of increased


traffic we have to take more sq. ft. of road space. Therefore, inevitably we must build higher, and at the very earliest moment replace office space which has been lost.
I would say a few words about the Rent Act. When it was before the House I had serious misgivings about what might be its effect and about troubles that might occur immediately it became law. I remember the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asking the Minister what he proposed to do about the 20,000 evictions which were expected, and two months later asking the Minister what he meant to do about the 2,000 evictions which were expected. As a matter of fact, the Rent Act has come into force with infinitely less disturbance and trouble than any of us expected.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—

Sir H. Webbe: I am sorry that I cannot give way I have only another two minutes to speak.
The effect of the Rent Act in my division has been greatly to improve premises. The amending Act ended the controversy about the type of landlord with whom we are all familiar and who, I feared, might take advantage of the original Act. There is now greater ease in obtaining accommodation.
In one respect the Rent Act has not produced the result for which we all hoped, which was that it would lead to exchange between the under-occupied and the over-occupied property. I suggest to the Minister that at every town hall should be a list open to public inspection and in regard to which the local authority need take no action or responsibility. People who wished to move from bigger flats to smaller or from smaller flats to bigger would put a simple advertisement on the list. There might be considerably more exchange in that way than there is at present. I know of under-occupied property that people cannot get out of because they cannot find a suitable exchange.
On the whole, the Rent Act has led to a considerable easing of the housing situation, certainly in Westminster, and I believe still more in other places. We shall see that process continued in the

future. I sympathise with the Minister. Solution of this problem is not merely a matter of money but is a question of sites. If that were not so, why has the production of houses by the London County Council dropped steadily year by year while the grant was still available to the council?

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I am very sensible of the honour that has been done to me in asking me to wind up this debate on behalf of the Opposition in this distinguished place. I feel this all the more when I know that there are many hon. Members behind me who represent London constituencies and who have had a lifetime of experience and of specialised knowledge in this field.
I think we all agree, having heard some of the speeches today, that hon. Members have contributed to an extremely valuable and useful debate. London Members need have no hesitation in pressing their claims, as they have done, for a debate on the London housing situation. Those of us who represent London constituencies, and who, of course, are mostly on this side of the Committee, are well aware of what a continuing and distressing problem the housing situation is for so many thousands of our constituents.
I do not propose to deal with the general problem at any length. Nearly all hon. Members have stated today that this is a debate in which primarily one makes constituency speeches. I make no apology for doing the same, even though I am winding up the debate from our side, because the Lewisham borough, I think, is a typical one. Some of its problems may be greater than those of other boroughs in London, but they are the same problems about which we have been hearing from hon. Members representing other boroughs in London.
I want to deal particularly at first with the question referred to by so many hon. Members, the problems created by the derequisitioning of houses. As hon. Members will know, we in Lewisham recently have been having what I think the Prime Minister would call our "little local difficulties". I should make it clear at the outset that anything I have to say about the requisitioning problem in Lewisham is not in any sense a party


matter. Throughout all the arguments and representations which the council has made to the Minister at no stage has any part of the Labour council's action been criticised by the Tory opposition on the council. There has not been a word of criticism from start to finish.
The history of the matter is this. Lewisham is the second largest borough in London and has a population approaching ¼ million. We have 63,000 houses. By that I mean real houses, not units of housing accommodation. Like all London boroughs, we suffered greatly from war damage during the war, but unlike some boroughs, such as Bermondsey, we did not suffer a wholesale destruction. The result was that we became a receiving area for great numbers of bombed-out people from other parts of London. There was very extensive bomb damage and I think that only 300 houses in the whole of Lewisham did not suffer bomb damage of some kind or other during the war. The houses were patched up and requisitoned and used by people bombed out of their homes.
At the peak period we had 2,888 requisitioned houses housing 4,472 families. At the end of March this year, a number of those requisitioned houses had been released to their owners and there remained only 727 properties housing 994 families. That is the hard core, a very substantial hard core, in Lewisham. To reach that figure, the council made throughout very real efforts to reduce the numbers. It did that by persuading owners where it could to accept tenants as statutory tenants, by trying to persuade tenants to look elsewhere for other accommodation if they could find it, by rehousing tenants in the council owned properties and by purchasing requisitioned or, as they are called, substitution houses.
By September of last year it became obvious to the council that it could not see its way to a solution of this problem by the date named in the Act, that is to say, by the end of March next year. Lewisham is not alone in that respect. There are thirteen boroughs in London which estimated at the beginning of this year that there would remain in total in those boroughs more than 3,500 families which they could not manage to rehouse by the termination

date. That is the scope of the problem. If they had wanted, they could have acted like Westminster City Council and, as it were, "smoked them out" with notices to quit. That is what Westminster City Council did some years ago and frightened tenants into looking elsewhere for accommodation.
Other councils feel that it is their responsibility to try to rehouse these people and not merely get them out of the building, as it were, by the time that the derequisitioning date comes. A deputation from the council was received by the Minister last October asking, above all, for more time. The Minister rejected this out of hand, saying, and alleging, that the council had itself contributed to the problem by its failure to make a reasonable contribution from its own resources, and also that it had unduly high standards for the purchase of requisitioned and substitution houses. I should like to look at both arguments.
First, I will deal with the council's own contributions from relettings. During the period in question, May, 1955, to October, 1958, the council was able in all to allot housing accommodation to 1,159 families. That is from re-lettings and new properties. This is the breakdown of the figures: families coming from sites for redevelopment, including slum clearance, 358, or 31 per cent. of the total. I do not think that the Minister ever suggested that we ought to have cut down that figure. Secondly, on special committee instructions—these are court orders, people evicted because of the right hon. Gentleman's Rent Act, closing order cases, urgent medical cases, cases of gross overcrowding—cases which I do not think the Minister would suggest that the council should ignore—198 families were rehoused, representing 17 per cent. of the total. From the ordinary waiting list, under the ordinary points scheme, 141 families, or 12 per cent. of the total, and from the requisitioned houses, 462 families, or 40 per cent. of the total. The largest group, 40 per cent. of the whole, was from requisitioned houses.
Does the Minister say that the council has not been making a reasonable contribution from its own resources? What does he suggest that it ought to have cut down? Which are the ones which ought to have been left out of


that list? Is the council to ignore completely demands on its ordinary waiting list?
Lewisham Borough Council is one of the councils that has not closed its list to fresh applicants, and during this period over 3,300 fresh applications were received by the borough council. The total list is now over 8,700 and of these more than 5,000 qualify for points by what is called bedroom-deficiency. We all know what this is—gross overcrowding, children sleeping in the same room as their parents, children over 11 sleeping with children of the opposite sex, and there are over 500 of these alone on the list. These are cases on the ordinary housing list, not special priority cases. Every London Member is, of course, familiar with cases of this sort. That is the tragic situation in which we find ourselves. We have young married couples imploring us to help them to find a solution to their housing problem. This is the sort of case to which no solution is to be found at the moment and which does not even qualify for the special priority treatment of which I am speaking.
Let me tell the Committee of one case which was brought to me not long ago. It was the case of a husband and wife with four children, all boys, aged 7, 4, 2 and 6 months living in two basement rooms. There was a very small living room and all slept in one bedroom. The two eldest boys slept across the bottom of their parents' bed because there was no place for another bed. The premises were damp and rat infested. The boy of four had had pneumonia three times and had a collapsed lung. I took the case up with three authorities. The Lewisham Borough Council said that as the family had not been resident in Lewisham for two years there was no prospect of Lewisham being able to rehouse them. The London County Council county medical officer regretted that he was unable to recommend preferential treatment from the very small pool of houses which he had for medical cases because he had so many other worse cases. The borough from which the family came agreed that the facts were as I stated, that the family qualified very highly on the points scheme, but for the foreseeable future it could not say when it would

be able to rehouse them, though it hoped to do so before long. It hopes to be able to rehouse them before long.
This is the kind of case on the ordinary housing list, and for such cases there is no subsidy. These are the cases which, apparently, the Minister considers that the council should push still further back in order to help to rehouse people who are in requisitioned houses which have been returned to their owners. We all know that the owners of these derequisitioned houses will be able to resell them on present market value at a considerable profit.
To continue the story, in October, 1958, the Lewisham Borough Council warned the Minister that it did not see how it could make any further allocation from its own resources for this purpose. In fact, since then it has done better than it thought it would. Up to 31st May fast, it has managed to rehouse thirty-two more families from requisitioned houses within its own resources. Only nine families have been rehoused under the ordinary points scheme.
I turn to the Minister's other solution—that of purchase. We on this side of the House are all delighted to see the Minister's eleventh-hour conversion to the conception of public ownership and municipal ownership of housing as a means of helping to solve London's housing problem. In answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) the other day the Minister said that up to 31st March last he had approved loan sanction for no fewer that 2,255 purchases of requisitioned or substitution houses in London. We know from the pressure which he is bringing to bear on local authorities that that number will be considerably increased by 31st March next year. We only hope that the Tory propaganda Press will not be slow to point out the effect of the Minister's adoption of our policies of municipalisation in helping to solve London's housing problem.
The Minister's complaint against the Lewisham Borough Council, and I have no doubt that it is made against others, is that our standards are too high in the kind of house which the council is ready to purchase. Our complaint against the Minister is that he has been trying to compel the council to buy sub-standard housing and has been bringing improper


pressure to bear to achieve that object by a wrong use of the grant formula under Section 11 of the 1955 Act.
Let me explain the point briefly. Under Section 11 the Minister has power to grant for a period of twenty years up to 75 per cent. of the estimated annual deficit on any property which is purchased. The Minister has laid down a grant formula by which, by complicated calculation, is worked out a notional income and notional expenditure on the property, often bearing little relation to what will be the facts. The Minister originally laid it down that no grant at all was to be payable if the total deficit were over £100 per annum.
In Lewisham we have a very high percentage of nineteenth century properties which are very large properties and which would not qualify for purchase under that limitation. The Lewisham Borough Council decided not to be bullied in this matter and made it clear to the Minister that, irrespective of the grant formula, it would go ahead and buy the kind of house which it felt was the right kind to buy for the solution of its problem. It made it clear that it would not be halted by the Minister's formula. Under pressure, the Minister eventually increased the total limit to £150 instead of £100, of which 75 per cent. is payable where the property falls within the Minister's grant formula. If, under this formula, the deficit is estimated to be more than £150, it is not merely that the Minister is not prepared to increase the maximum. The council receives nothing at all. This is the kind of way in which we consider that the Minister is wrongly applying the powers given to him under Section 11.
Following this meeting with the Minister, the council reviewed the cases in which it had rejected houses and decided not to purchase them. The council still considered that many of the houses were not suitable or right for it to buy. It sent fifteen examples to the Minister of the kind of properties, with reports on them, and asked the Minister whether he seriously was suggesting that the council ought to buy houses of that kind. The kind of defects in them were defects of structural movement, bulging brickwork, sloping floors, derelict basements, sagging roofs, rising and penetrating damp, wet and dry rot, woodworm, lack of sanitary amenities and defective drains.

Otherwise they were all right! The reply from the Ministry did not answer the question. It said:
it is for the Council … to decide whether any particular property in their area is suitable.
Then came a choice comment:
But the prime object now must be to give families security of tenure.
Those words might make a suitable epitaph for the present Minister of Housing. The letter went on to point out that the houses did not seem to be so bad that they could be said under the Housing Acts to be unfit for human habitation and, in those circumstances, provided that they complied with the grant formula, the Minister would be prepared to approve them for grants.
We consider that that is not the right way in which to approach the problem. Certainly local authorities have responsibilities for trying to take into their control bad housing and, by repairing and reconditioning it, place it at the disposal of people who have these great housing needs. Another difficulty which the Minister has put in the way of local authorities is that the amounts available to them for repairing properties of the kind I have been describing are calculated by formulae which are less generous to local authorities than the 2 (1, b) claims payable to owners when their houses are returned to them on release from requisition.
To conclude on this problem, I ask the Minister, first, to give further consideration to the question of the date of the end of March. In view of what has been said by so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee today, I ask the Minister to think again about that. Secondly, the Minister should give more time to local authorities for repairs. At present, they have to embark on their repairs within twelve months of that date to qualify for a grant. Thirdly, I ask the Minister to think again about temporary bungalows on open spaces. When we have problems of the kind described today, it is a little illogical to be in such haste to take down these temporary bungalows when we are bending every nerve to try to patch up houses in far worse condition.
In the last remaining minute, I turn to one other aspect which has been mentioned today, namely, the Rent Act. I


am afraid that I have not time, as I would have liked, to comment upon the effects of the Rent Act as we London Members know it in its operation. I want to ask the Minister one question. He has been asked it several times and he has not answered it yet. Everyone in London wants to know the answer in its application to London. In the event of the Conservative Party being returned to power again, what is their policy about future measures of decontrol? We know what their policy is, because it was stated by the Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Housing, at the Llandudno Party Conference in 1956—"Our Conservative aim is the total abolition of rent control."
During the Rent Act debate the Minister of Housing said that they would never decontrol properties except of a certain standard, and in areas where there was no longer a housing shortage. He thought that there was not a housing shortage in properties of a rateable value of £40. He was found wrong and, in spite of his obstinacy, he had to give way over the 1948 Act.
We know the amount of suffering caused by these decontrol provisions. What the House wants to know—and, much more, what the population of London wants to know—is whether the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that, certainly for the next five years, he will not contemplate any decontrol provisions being extended in London. Unless he is so prepared, the House will know, and the country will know, that the Conservative Party is determined to continue its policy of inflicting hardship in order to benefit landlords and property companies.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I know that both sides of the Committee have appreciated the force and sincerity with which the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) have spoken. The hon. Member for Bermondsey opened the debate with a hard-hitting speech. I make no complaint of that, for what good would any of us be on either side of the Committee

if we did not speak forcefully when we believe what we say?
The hon. Member for Bermondsey seemed for a moment to have supposed that in my speech a week ago I had questioned the right of the Opposition to raise the subject of housing. Not for one moment would I question that. What I questioned was their right, in view of their own housing record, to criticise what we had done. For my part, I welcome this debate on London housing, because I share with other hon. Members the view that the London housing shortage is a serious one, and one that we should debate here. It was the Opposition, not the Government, that asked that the debate should be confined to half a day.
We listened, later in the debate, to an admirable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) —

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have taken no part in the debate, but the Minister's remark might be open to misconstruction. The position is that the Opposition, by convention, have a certain amount of time. Had we an indefinite amount of time, or were the Government willing to give it, we should be very willing to debate London's housing, or other housing, for much longer.

Mr. Brooke: I have not very much time myself, and I should like to proceed with what I have to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney said that we had still to solve the hard core of the housing problem in London. I wholly agree with him. The slum clearance problem here is small in comparison with that which exists in the great provincial cities. In fact, the survey that was carried out in 1954 and 1955, at the request of my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, showed only 44,000 houses in the whole of Greater London estimated to be unfit for human habitation. Of those, no fewer than 17,000 have already, in this comparatively short time, been cleared or demolished. My own view is that the local authorities' estimate of 20,000 unfit houses in the County of London was an underestimate. I believe that when those have been cleared there will be more to tackle.
There has been, however, a sort of undercurrent of suggestion from the Opposition that we are concentrating too much on slum clearance and that


it would be better to build for general needs and let the slums continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was the implication of many of the arguments used. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What I would point out is that if we were to build for general needs on the available sites within London we should be destroying the elbow room needed for slum clearance.
As all hon. Members must know, very seldom in London can one carry out a slum clearance scheme and rehouse all the people on the site itself. If all the sites are to be built on for general needs we shall bring slum clearance to a stop. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that we need a slum clearance crusade in London and elsewhere until we have finished the job.
Let me turn to the question of requisitioned houses. Your predecessor, Sir Gordon, ruled that I could not answer the questions put to me as to what was to happen after 31st March, 1960, because, as the Committee knows, that final date is in an Act of Parliament and on a Supply Day we cannot discuss amendments of the law. What I want to put on record is that the Metropolitan borough councils themselves estimate that by that date 13 out of every 14 requisitioned houses which they took over in 1955 will have been dealt with. Indeed, their estimate, when they came to see me a little time ago, was that there would be only 2,000 properties, comprising about 3,500 dwellings, which would not by then have been dealt with.
I suggested—and I am sure I was right—that by one final effort in the remaining months it ought to be possible to finish the job. If there are any local authorities in the London area which have not finished this job of dealing with their requisitioned properties it will be because those particular borough councils did not start it early enough and did not take it seriously enough.
For my part, I believe that Parliament should claim credit for seeking to bring, fifteen years after the end of the war, the requisitioning of properties to an end. I do not conceive that there is any solution to this serious problem simply by extending the date. We must tackle derequisitioning and settle it once for all.
The main housing problem in London, as I conceive it—and I have been a

London Member for a good many years—is overcrowding. Here we are up against the grave difficulty of enforcing the measures that are on the Statute Book against overcrowding. The reason is, of course, that if there is not enough room for everybody, and one tries to eliminate overcrowding in one house, one may only be creating it in another. It is significant that since the end of the war Governments have been aware of practically no pressure from the local authorities in London that there should be a fresh drive against overcrowding, or that all the provisions against overcrowding should be enforced. Indeed, I know that some local authorities are aware of the very real danger of stimulating overcrowding, when it became known that if there were serious overcrowding in a particular house that might give the occupants of that house, as it were, artificial priority to get a council flat.
These things are very difficult, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) illustrated most acutely how hard it would be to enforce the overcrowding provisions. As he pointed out—and one finds it not only in his constituency—there is overcrowding in houses owned by the London County Council; and there again, it seems that there is no apparent solution, because the London County Council will not take responsibility for decrowding the houses and, as he said, borough councils like his own find it almost impossible to do so.
I do not wish to speak at length on the question of coloured immigrants. This is not the occasion to do so, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) realises that questions such as he raised go far beyond my responsibilities. I feel certain that the whole Committee will appreciate the inherent difficulties of dealing with this matter of overcrowding in houses occupied by coloured people. If one were to give coloured people a special priority on the housing list, nothing would be more likely to stir up racial feeling.
Personally, I give great credit, to, so far as I know, all the London local authorities for making no differentiation according to colour in discharging their housing responsibilities. Certainly, wherever slum clearance is going on,


white and coloured people are rehoused on terms of absolute equality. We must all give very serious thought to how we can tackle, as soon as we can, the problem of overcrowding in London, because it is this, I believe, which is at the root of the housing problem.
Several hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Bermondsey, argued as though local authorities in London were handicapped primarily by financial difficulties. I agree much more strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) that this is not a question of money, but a question of sites. The general need subsidy has been abolished, but there remain the subsidy for slum clearance, the subsidy for rehousing old people, the subsidy in respect of expensive sites, and the subsidy in respect of high flats. If the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) cares to send me any particulars of cases where he thinks my Department has forced false economies on a local authority, I shall be very glad to look into them.
No hon. Member, I think, has recalled the fact that, in the Housing Act, there is a discretionary subsidy which any local authority can claim if it finds itself unable to discharge its statutory housing duties except at the cost of putting up the rents excessively or putting up the rates excessively. I am not aware that any application from any London local authority has been received for that discretionary subsidy. It is being paid to about 40 authorities outside London.
I must say, in passing, that there are some local authorities which could make a contribution to the solution of the housing problems of London if they would further revise their rent policies. There are still many older flats in which there are living, at comparatively low rents, people who could well afford to pay more. In a case like that, if the local authority refuses to look again at its rent policy, it is inflicting cruelty on the people on its own housing list.
Planning questions have been raised. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), described the County of London plan as a splendid vision. The plan, when it was approved by my predecessor in

1956, was amended by him in the directions which various hon. Members opposite have pleaded for today. The Socialist-controlled London County Council sought to allocate a larger amount of land in London for industrial and commercial purposes than my right hon. Friend, who is now the Minister of Defence, was prepared to approve. Also, he wrote into the London plan further protection against the alienation of residential property to other uses. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, asked me to put a stop to any further office development.
These questions are really questions, in the first instance, for the London County Council. The 1947 Act, which her party put on the Statute Book, placed on the planning authority the duty of making recommendations to the Minister and putting up its proposals. It would be quite wrong for me to bring pressure to bear on the London County Council either about the way in which it should seek to amend the plan next time, or about any changes in densities it should recommend. These are matters which must come up from the planning authority to me. Then, I, having ordered a public inquiry if need be, must reach my decisions in the light of all the facts. If the London County Council, when the time comes—it will be next year—recommends density changes, then I certainly will carefully consider them on their merits.
Hardly any hon. Member tonight, curiously enough, has mentioned the question of new towns. In fact, the eight new towns round London are providing very considerable relief for London's housing needs. Because we have a New Towns Bill before the House, some people imagine that the new towns' building is almost at an end. That is not so. There are about 35,000 more flats and houses remaining to be built during the development of the eight new towns round London alone.
The Town Development Act is also making its contribution. In firm schemes agreed under the Town Development Act there are 23,000 houses to be built for Londoners. If one includes other schemes which are not so firm, but are foreseeable, the figure rises to 35,000.
I have told the London County Council that I am willing, in principle, that it


should build a new town if a site can be found, but the truth is that, as we have already found eight sites for new towns, it is not easy to find more. One cannot put a new town anywhere. New towns will fail unless industry goes out to them. Great help could be given to the easing of the London housing problem if other London industrialists would look into the experience of those industrialists who have moved out to new towns or expanded towns.
Almost without exception, they are delighted with the effects of their move. If other industries would also go out, that would greatly relieve the housing problem. I will take note of the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South about seeking means of helping Londoners to find a job and a house in a new area.
I have tried in a short time—I did not want to cut into the debate—to put the main facts of the problem on record. The total provision for Londoners is being made at present at the rate of about 35,000 new houses and flats a year. It has been above 40,000 in only three years since the war—1953, 1954 and

1955. After that, the shortage of sites began to take effect. There are at the moment 41,000 houses under construction for the benefit of Londoners.

I have compared the numbers of houses built for Londoners inside and outside London. In 1951–1958, as compared with 1945–1951, the number has risen by about 60 per cent. That does not look like the Government failing in their duty. Between 1957 and 1958 the population of the County of London fell by just on 30,000, and between 1951 and 1958 the population of Greater London fell by 126,000. In that period the net increase of houses in London and Greater London was 204,000, so that the Government are doing their job.

Mr. Mellish: As the vast bulk of Londoners on housing waiting lists get no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 218.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Forman, J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lawson, G. M.


Awbery, S. S.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Ledger, R. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gibson, C. W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Baird, J.
Gooch, E. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Greenwood, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus


Beswick, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie
MacColl, J. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacDermot, Niall


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W.
McInnes, J.


Boardman, H.
Hastings, S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Healey, Denis
Mayhew, C. P.


Boyd, T. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Messer, Sir F.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holmes, Horace
Mitchison, G. R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S.


Chapman, W. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.


Clunie, J.
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, F. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. (Derby, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oram, A. E.


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Orbach, M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Owen, W. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Padley, W. E.


Diamond, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn John (W. Brmwch)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Parker, J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, John




Peart, T. F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomney, F.


Pentland, N.
Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Popplewell, E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Warbey, W. N.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Snow, J. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Probert, A. R.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)


Proctor, W. T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Purser, Cmdr. H.
Steele, T.
Willey, Frederick


Randall, H. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Rankin, John
Storehouse, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Redhead, E. C.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Reid, William
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Reynolds, G. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Woof, R. E.


Ross, William
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Short, E. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
du Cann, E. D. L.
Leather, E. H. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Arbuthnot, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)


Armstrong, C. W.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert


Atkins, H. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Batsford, Brian
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Gibson-Watt, D.
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Glover, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bidgood, J. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Mathew, R.


Bingham, R. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mawby, R. L.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimond, J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Black, Sir Cyril
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Body, R. F.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Neave, Airey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'tti, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Osborne, C.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Burden, F. F. A.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hesketh, R. F.
Peel, W. J.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carr, Robert
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pott, H. P.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Powell, J. Enoch


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Hope, Lord John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cole, Norman
Horobin, Sir Ian
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, John (Test)
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, R. C.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Dance, J. C. C.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Speir, R. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Keegan, D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kershaw, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, G. W.
Storey, S.







Studholme, Sir Henry
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Summers Sir Spencer
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek



Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.


Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.

Original Question again proposed

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CALF SUBSIDIES

10.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the Scottish Scheme.

Mr. Godber: The rates of subsidy under the present scheme are £7 10s. for heifer calves and £8 10s. for steer calves. The purpose of the Schemes is to give effect to an increase to £9 5s. in the rate of subsidy for steer calves born on and after 1st April, 1959, as announced in the White Paper on the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1959. The Orders vary the existing Schemes, which apply to calves born up to 29th October, 1961, in this sense, but make no other change.
The purpose of the calf subsidy is to encourage the rearing of calves for beef. Since its introduction there has been a considerable increase in the number of calves reared, a large proportion of which are steer calves from the dairy herd which had previously been killed at a few days old. The figures for 4th June, 1958, show that there were then 1,075,000 steer calves and 1,482,000 heifer calves in the United Kingdom compared with 638,000 steer calves and 1,367,000 heifer calves in 1952, when the present subsidy was introduced. These represent increases of 68 per cent, in the number of steers and 8 per cent. in heifers. Those are rather significant figures. The quarterly figures for March, 1959, indicate that a further increase will almost certainly be shown by the 4th June figures for this year.
Hon. Members may ask why the increase has been confined to steer calves. The fact is that despite the increase in numbers I have given it is apparent there is still a considerable number of male calves being sold for slaughter when a few days old which could be reared as stores. The increase in the

steer calf rate is intended to encourage more of these to be kept for rearing. On the other hand, practically all heifer calves, except obvious bad-doers that are not fit for rearing, are already being saved either for breeding or rearing for mature beef. Nothing would, therefore, be gained by increasing further the heifer calf subsidy, which is still at the fairly high level of £7 10s. per head.
I should like to mention briefly one other point. The increase applies to calves born on or after 1st April. Although we recognise that this falls within the middle of the Spring calving season, 1st April marks the beginning of the livestock year when changes in guaranteed prices of livestock and livestock products under the Annual Review award take effect. We felt that the disadvantages of making the date of the change earlier—which would have meant giving it retrospective effect—or of making it two or three months later—which might have meant that very few calves would have earned the increase during the present year, since they do not usually qualify until they are eight months old—outweighed any possible disadvantages of making 1st April the date of the change.
Since the calf subsidy was reinstated in 1952, it has made a very valuable contribution to increasing our supplies of home-produced beef, and a further increase in these supplies is very desirable in view of the drop in imports of Argentine beef. I am confident that this increase in the subsidy will result in more calves being reared for beef, and I commend the Schemes to the House.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: This will be another debate in the series of debates that we have held on the calf subsidies. The conventional form of these debates is to repeat the questions which have been asked on the previous occasion, to receive an ineffective reply from the Government and then patiently to await the opportunity to repeat the questions the following year. I propose to alter the procedure on this occasion. I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he has done since these questions were last asked, and to add one or two questions of my own of a rather more fundamental nature.
We are discussing something of considerable importance. I estimate that this subsidy will now amount to about £14 million a year. In other words, this aid to the farmer is at a greater rate than the whole of the aid which the Government are proposing to give to the cotton industry. We have to recognise that we are considering something of considerable importance, and the House ought to be satisfied that we are making proper use of such a considerable sum of the taxpayers' money.
I now turn to the questions. The first has been anticipated. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has referred to it. The question is: why is the operative date of the Schemes 1st April? We know that April Fool's Day is particularly attractive to the Treasury, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it penalises good farmers. This matter has been raised repeatedly by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I remember the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) saying that there could not be a worse time. It seems rather silly to pick a time right in the middle of the calving season.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that he is doing this, but he has not said why, except that it is following the livestock year, for the purposes of the Price Review. But we want a better explanation than that. This is prejudicial to all the farmers whose cows calve in February and March, which surely is not unusual. If the Schemes are doing anything they are encouraging late calving.
In any case, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary clearly must expect some-one to say that this does not affect the present season. It will not get any more calves this season. Other reasons have been put forward repeatedly in these debates, but all the hon. Member can say is that this is convenient to the Treasury. I would remind him that even Government spokesmen have conceded on previous occasions that this is not a suitable date for beef herds.
What consultations has the hon. Gentleman had? What examination has he made of the matter? I should like to see an examination made of the determination of all prices in the February Price Review. It would be outside

the scope of the present Scheme to mention other difficulties which arise, but it seems to me that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has merely stated the obvious and has not endeavoured to satisfy the House that this is not something prejudicial to the good farmer. The House is entitled to know why a more suitable date was not chosen on this occasion.
I would remind him of some other questions which are asked, and which he should have expected. Why is there no differential in favour of dehorned calves? Why have not we a weighted subsidy to encourage this? On a previous occasion the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
I believe that it would be wrong for us to drive farmers to do something good".
I cannot for the life of me see how that is relevant to the Schemes. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is really saying, "This is desirable and it would be welcome, but we must leave it to market forces." The Schemes will interfere with market forces. At this early stage in the production cycle, they inject a subsidy.
It is quite fatuous, therefore, to refer us to the stimulus of market forces. If it is proper for the Government to give this injection at this stage it would be equally proper, if they thought a case could be made out for it—which they apparently do—to say, "We will encourage the dehorning of cattle by a weighted subsidy." When we last debated the Schemes my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said some very wise things about certification, and the need to make it more accurate. He appealed to the Government to do something about scientifically-conducted progeny testing. In reply, the hon. Gentleman said:
I agree that there is a great deal to be done … We have a long way to go.
He even said:
I take note of the wise words he used on the matter.
Why did not the hon. Gentleman come to this debate prepared to say what he has done? If this is going to the heart of the problem, it is about time that the Government showed they were doing something. It is not good enough to come to the House and ask for an ever-increasing subsidy, which comes now to the rate of £14 million. We are entitled


to an effective reply to these questions, which have been asked for years.
I want now to ask two more fundamental questions of my own. As the White Paper explains, the purpose of this increase is to encourage beef production, and, as it points out, the output of beef has fallen temporarily. We all agree why it has fallen temporarily. Younger animals have come on to the market and been killed at a smaller size and weight. Therefore, we now need more calves. Incidentally, another question that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is always asked is whether many calves are slaughtered prematurely after the subsidy is paid. This, again, is one of those questions to which we never have a reply.
If that is the case, why was not something done before? Why was not something done last year and the year before? The Scheme will do nothing about the temporary fall in output. We can see from the figures that it will adjust itself, but this temporary fall in output is a condemnation of the Government's policy.
In the debate last year, the late Mr. Sidney Dye forcibly called the Government's attention to this, as he had done in 1956. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied that Mr. Dye exaggerated about the fall in the imports of beef. He then went on to make this extraordinary statement:
there is a steady increase in our home production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1958; Vol. 591, cc. 1570–1.]
The White Paper, however, tells us that there has been a fall in output. It says, as we believe, that the fall is temporary. This evasion of the Parliamentary Secretary will not help us at all. It must be recognised that the Government have fallen down on beef production.
Let us consider whether Mr. Dye did, in fact, exaggerate. We now have the figures for the first five months of this year. There has been a serious fall in the import of beef this year notwithstanding the welcome and unexpected increase in the supplies from Australia. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary rather played down the prospect of a fall in supplies from the Argentine. There has been a drastic fall in those supplies. We are getting 40 per cent, less than we were last year.
Let us consider home production, of which the Parliamentary Secretary said that there is a steady increase. Home production is substantially down on last year—in fact, it is 56,000 tons down. The Government have some responsibility for this. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, as he has done on previous occasions, takes the responsibility for the level of our beef production, he has so contrived things that we have a temporary shortfall on home production at the same time as we have this drastic fall in imports.
This has affected the housewife who buys beef, and for this the Government are largely responsible. It will not be affected by the present Scheme, under which we are considering what we are doing, with the long-term policy in view. The Government are responsible for the position obtaining now. They said twelve months ago that there was no case for increasing the amount of the subsidy. Now they come to the House when we are suffering the effects of the temporary shortage and too late wish to increase the subsidy.
The second fundamental question is whether, in the circumstances I have described, the increase in the subsidy of £14 million is wise, whether it will be effective and is necessary, and whether, in particular, the increase is appropriate. I quite understand Whitehall saying, when confronted with a prospective shortage of beef, "Let us increase the calf subsidy". That is the automatic thing to do. I once said to the then Minister of Food, "If you deal with eggs, have a word with the grocer". In the same way, when we are dealing with fatstock we might have a word with those who are responsible for the trade.
What is the purpose of the present marketing arrangements and deficiency payments? It is that production shall have the full stimulus of marketing conditions. That is why the Government introduced the scheme of deficiency payments. The position that obtains today is that the stimulus ought to be there because of the marketing mechanism. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary consulted a butcher he would know that we have higher retail prices than we have ever had, that they increased substantially last year and have increased considerably this year. Why cannot we


rely upon the marketing mechanism to attract the increased production? If we cannot, we had better examine the present price mechanism for fatstock.
If we merely put in an injection at this stage of the production cycle we are getting the worst of both worlds. We have high retail prices. I imagine that very little is being paid by way of deficiency payments, so there is very little Exchequer responsibility there. We are getting the high price of beef in the shops, yet the taxpayer is being called upon at the same time to make this increased calf subsidy at an early stage of the production cycle. This is quite apart from the general point I have made that in any case the temporary shortage is being dealt with and we know that the calves are now growing up into beef.
We can discuss this dispassionately, because this is a part of the overall annual Price Review determination; but even so, we have to question very seriously whether this production grant is justified in running up to more than £14 million. Let us consider briefly the grounds of the subsidy. First, we are told that it is making financial aid available at an early stage. If that is argued, we ought to pay attention to the steps which the F.M.C. has taken in making advance payments. This is a far wider question. We are avoiding the major question if we merely go on every few years increasing this subsidy.
What is the further argument made for the subsidy? It is that it helps the small farmer. We now happen to have a scheme to help the small farmer. Would it not be wiser to think of better ways of using the subsidy directly within the Small Farmer Scheme than to allow this subsidy to mount year after year?
The argument that this is a necessary incentive to increased production seems to be belied in present circumstances by the market conditions. With this drastic shortfall in imported supplies, with this temporary shortfall in home production, with market prices rising, with retail prices higher than ever before, surely the market ought to encourage increased production without this aid at the taxpayers' expense. If not, we had better inquire into the way in which the market works, to see why the producer is not

getting the benefit and what conditions are necessary to ensure that the benefit goes to the produced. If he is not receiving the benefit, the producer has an absolutely valid claim to ask why this has not happened.
This is a matter we can consider dispassionately. It does not affect the Annual Price Review. It is within that determination, and what the House is entitled to be concerned about is that we are making the most effective use of the money going in production grants and this particular production grant. We have to satisfy ourselves that the money we are using is concentrated on the most effective forms of production grant.
Recognising that this comes within the Price Review, we would not think of opposing this Scheme, but I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will face the question that arises on the Scheme. I hope that he will regard this seriously and not just fall into the lazy habits of his Departmental advisers by saying that because there is a calf subsidy, and because the Government are guilty of bad planning about beef production, the answer is merely automatically to increase the subsidy every two years or so.
These are fundamental, if difficult, questions and I hope that before we consider the subsidy again this matter will have serious consideration by the Government and that both they and producers will keep under constant review the necessity of making the very best use they can of the production grants.

10.33 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), with some of which I agreed. I should be much more convinced, however, if he had a greater farming following behind him on the Opposition benches. So far as I can see, there is a complete absence of farming following there, which is not very good in view of the comparatively crowded benches on this side of the House.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was reminiscent of his speeches on this subject for the last several years. He changes a few figures, but the arguments—with


which I do not entirely agree—seem to be exactly the same and do not carry any more weight with me than they did previously when I and others questioned them. One bone of contention I have mentioned before is the question of Friesian heifer calves becoming eligible for the subsidy. We know that certain heifer calves will receive the small differential subsidy, but I can see no logical reason why, if, for example, dairy shorthorn and other similar calves are reared and have the subsidy, the Friesian heifers should not have it also.
It has been shown more and more in recent years that there is a great demand for Friesian beef. We know that it is a different type and does not fill the same market as the Aberdeen Angus and the Hereford, but in some parts of the country butchers and the public require lean meat rather than the fat meat which they used to like before the war. It is said that because mechanisation is taking the place of hard labour in industry, people today require less fat and that if they like fat they get it from vegetable rather than animal sources. For that reason, as is well known, in many of the important markets of this country the demand for lean beef has increased enormously.
As that is so, I suggest that Friesian heifer calves should be eligible for this subsidy. I remember that some years ago when I put this suggestion to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary he said that so many Friesian heifers or Friesian types would come forward that the Government could not afford it as there was insufficient money to go round. He said that in any case a large number of the heifers were going to dairy herds. If that is so, I suggest that we should cut out the subsidy for heifers altogether and give it exclusively to steer calves. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that again and at least give me a better answer than that which he gave me when I raised the matter previously.
I support the hon. Member for Sunderland, North in what he said about the dehorning of calves. Those who work among stock know only too well the damage done by animals horning each other. If the subsidy were given only for dehorned young stock it would clearly cost the Government a little less.

It would mean a great improvement in the stock filling the bullock yards in the country. Here again, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's answer in the past has not been convincing. This is a case in which he could make a great improvement at no cost to the Government and perhaps with a saving of money. I hope that he will consider it.
I should like to comment on the choice of 1st April as the all-important date which decides whether a farmer receives the higher or the lower subsidy. It is the worst possible time of the year. Why should the farmers and those dealing with calves have to bow down to the magic day of 1st April, which has been dictated by the Treasury? It encourages an enormous amount of fiddling, and many fanners know very little about that in any case. I suggest that the Minister select some date when calving is at its minimum. It would be very much fairer and far better for the farmer who wanted to be completely honest. There must be very many calves in respect of which the higher subsidy is paid when they have no right to it, and vice versa, according to the way in which they are reared.
This subsidy is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It is an excellent thing to encourage the rearing of calves, but I am critical of the way in which the money is being used.

10.39 p.m.

Sir Archer Baldwin: I had not intended to take part in the debate but I must comment on the suggestion that the Government should encourage the dehorning of calves. If the dealers who buy our store cattle want dehorned cattle, it is up to them to pay a little more in the store market for dehorned or polled cattle than they pay for those with horns. They need no Government assistance. In fact, that is taking place already. The number of store cattle coming into the market without their horns, either through breeding or by polling, is increasing because producers have found that they receive a reward for bringing the cattle into the yards without horns. We do not need to be taught our job in this respect by the Government.
I want to say a word about the amount of money that goes into the calf subsidy.


I have never been in favour of giving various sums to the farmers in the process of production. I have always been in favour of giving it in the end price, to the man who produces the goods. Certifying calves is a very expensive job. It lends itself, as my hon. Friend just said, to a certain amount of abuse. I could not tell whether a steer calf had been born on 1st April or 1st June. It would be a very clever man who could tell. Therefore, I hope that these shots in the arm will be done away with and that we shall get the end price and reward those who produce. It would probably cost the Government a little less money.
I am speaking against my own interest by pointing out that at the present time I get a subsidy on all my pedigree heifer calves which I have no intention of putting into the market until they are cows. Therefore, if the end price were given it would do away with a certain amount of subsidy paid for heifer calves. My hon. Friend spoke about the Freisian heifer calf. I would say that one which was born to produce milk should not be given a subsidy for the production of beef at a later date. It does not seem to be consistent.
One word about the amount of the subsidy. The hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey) said that the subsidy was costing the taxpayer £14 million which was equal to what was being spent on the cotton industry. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this money is being paid as a subsidy to the farmer so that the cotton workers and other workers can have their food a little cheaper than anywhere else in the world. Therefore, do not let it be thought that the farmer is getting something to which he is not entitled. Is he expected to feed the people at less than the cost of production? That is what it would mean if he did not receive the subsidy. I would rather see him get the end price than the subsidy.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps I could respond to some of the points made during the debate and to some of the somewhat numerous questions put to me by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I was somewhat surprised at one or two of the criticisms

which he made, and I shall seek to show, I hope, that some of them were not wholly well-founded. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) dealt conclusively with at least one of the hon. Gentleman's points. I do not think that there is any need for me to go into the comparison of the value of the subsidy compared with what goes to the cotton industry. My hon. Friend was absolutely right when he said that the subsidy was directed to producing more food at a reasonable price.

Mr. Willey: The reason I called attention to the size of the subsidy was in order to call attention to the fact that we are here dealing with a considerable sum and that, therefore, the burden is on the House to see that we make the best use of it. It all comes into the Price Review—the determination. We must see that we make the most effective use of the money with which we aid agriculture.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear to us what was in his mind in that regard. I do not think it necessary for me to deal with the matter further.
The hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) also, mentioned the question of the date on which this was introduced and chided me with the fact that it was not a good date at all in the calf-rearing year. It was the earliest possible date from the time of the Price Review having been completed. I think it would have been wrong to try to introduce anything of a retrospective nature. It is always frowned upon in the House. Therefore, the only alternative would be to bring the date considerably forward. That would have had the effect of depriving a very considerable number of farmers of increased subsidy this year. We were not willing to do that.
Another point that appears to have escaped both hon. Members who have referred to it is that while it certainly may work in this way when the subsidy goes up, if it were to be reduced in any year it would be a different matter. Presumably, the arguments that have been used so forcefully on this occasion


would be equally valid in the opposite direction, if the subsidy were reduced.
The hon. Member also asked about dehorned calves, a point very well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. It is right and reasonable that if people prefer dehorned calves they should be willing, as my hon. Friend said, to pay for the difference in the market when they buy their stores. That is what is happening, and I do not see that there is any incentive to the Government to limit this subsidy to dehorned calves. It is much better to leave it to the good judgment of the producers, as we seek to do now.
The hon. Member also thought that we were doing little about progeny testing. He must know that the Milk Marketing Board is doing a great deal in this direction. The Board is being very active over this testing, but this is a very long-term measure, particularly for cattle with such a long life cycle, and it is unreasonable to expect either us or the Milk Marketing Board to give any conclusive figures in the very near future.
The hon. Member asked whether any animals were prematurely slaughtered after the subsidy is paid. I imagine that he is thinking of very forward veal calves. I do not think there is any great likelihood of this, and I certainly have no evidence of it. The animals will not attract the subsidy until they are getting on for a year old in most cases, and most veal calves are killed before that age. I do not know of any great number of animals carrying the subsidy that do not go on for sale as fat beef.
The hon. Gentleman's main criticism was that we have been producing insufficient beef in recent months to meet the need, following a fall in supplies from the Argentine. He quoted me as saying last year that there would be a steady increase in home production. I stand by that, and I shall seek to show him why. As I have just said, beef production is a long-term business. I have some rather interesting figures here of the number of calves in the United Kingdom in each year at 4th June. The figures go back over the last ten years or more, and the interesting point is that they reached their lowest point in 1952, after rising in the earlier post-war years.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that his own Government did away with the calf subsidy—completely eliminated it—just as they went out of office. We resurrected it, but the loss of confidence resulting from the Labour Government's action in 1951 is reflected in the 1952 figures. We reached a total of only just over two million in 1952, but by 1954 we had got it up to 2¼ million. Last year, the latest for which we have figures, we had raised the total to over 2½ million.
That steady rise shows that we are building up supplies of beef, but it takes three years from the initiation stages—if I may so term it—before getting the finished article, and it takes a considerable time to overtake any backlog. In this case we have also had to deal with the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, the practice of killing at a younger age has had its effect. A year ago, or a little more, it brought in a lot of beef, but we have now had a flattening out in production. However, with the largish quantity of calves coming forward now it is reasonable to expect a larger number for killing in the latter part of the year. I believe that we shall gradually be able to improve in this way.
The hon. Member also referred to the fall in the supplies of Argentine beef, but it is fair to remind the House that Australian beef has been coming forward in larger quantities this year, and the total supplies of meat to the public have been comparable because there has been a great deal more mutton and lamb available this year. I do not think anyone could complain that there has been any acute shortage of meat.
Although the hon. Member may say that prices of beef are higher in some respects than they have been in the past, I would remind him that the overall price of meat is not greatly higher. Indeed, the cost of living is steady and stable, and has been so for twelve months, and shows every prospect of going down, as a result of sound government. Therefore, the hon. Member should not try to make too much of the point which he was pursuing in this respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich asked me a question about Friesian heifer calves.


I understand his feelings and those of others interested in this breed, that they would like Friesian heifer calves included in the Scheme, but I would point out that this is a beef subsidy, and neither he nor anyone else can deny that at least three-quarters of the Friesian heifers go into the dairy herds. I cannot bring myself to think that it is right for us to be subsidising, in order to obtain beef, such a large number of heifers which go into the dairy herds.
My hon. Friend may say, as indeed I think he did, that we ought to take the subsidy away from all heifers, but there are difficulties there. It is rather hard to argue that some of the purely beef breeds should lose their subsidy for this reason. This is a difficult question, I agree, but up to the present we have felt that it would be wrong to change this system either one way or the other. I think that, generally speaking, the farming community accept it as being a fair solution to a rather difficult problem. Certainly I am sure they accept that it is not in the interests of beef production suddenly to subsidise a very large number of heifers which will find their way into the dairy herds. For those reasons, we have found it necessary to continue the system. Of course, the new Scheme which we are asking the House to approve widens the differential between the subsidy for steers and heifers, and to that extent it should go some little way to satisfy my hon. Friend.
I have tried to deal with the various points which have been raised. I assure the House that we take careful note of these points as they are raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunder-land, North for the assiduity with which he studied my previous speeches.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): Or acidity.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps in the case of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North the two terms are synonymous. I am grateful to the House for the general response to this Scheme, and I hope hon. Members will approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation) Scheme,

1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th May, be approved.

Calf Subsidies (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme, 1959 [draft laid before the House, 5th May], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The gulf between dehorned calves and human rights may seem very considerable, but I make no apology for raising the latter subject even at this late hour.
In the course of the last year or so I have directed a number of Questions to the Foreign Secretary about the Convention on Human Rights, the Court and Commission of Human Rights. In view of what I have deemed to be the unsatisfactory nature of the replies—to use a well-worn but, in this case, appropriate Parliamentary expression—I am raising the subject tonight.
One of the alarming features of life in this century has been the ease with which, overnight, apparently civilised Governments not only in Asia but in Europe have deprived human beings in their own countries and others of fundamental freedom, liberty and life itself. It was for this reason that, after the last war, the Governments of the nations thought it necessary to reaffirm in the Charter of the United Nations
faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women of all nations, large and small".
Similar ideas were expressed in the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, to which this Government subscribed. Then came the Statute of the Council of Europe, which requires in terms, in Article 3. that every member
must accept the principles of the rule of law and the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Convention on Human Rights and its protocol go into very great detail and define precisely the rights which the members of the Council have undertaken to protect.
As a result of these and other developments in international law, the individual human person now everywhere has acquired a new status and stature, whether he is a man on the Clapham omnibus, a detainee in Nyasaland, a prisoner in the Hola Camp, a political prisoner in Spain or a political prisoner in Hungary. To use the eloquent phrase of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, the distinguished British member of the International Court of Justice:
The individual has been transformed from an object of international compassion into a subject of international right.
Not only has the individual international rights now under international law. The Charter and Judgment of Nuremberg established that the individual has international duties. Twelve men were hanged to teach the world that lesson. The present Lord Chancellor played a distinguished part in the endeavour to develop the conception of crimes against humanity, the idea that there are fundamental human rights recognised by international law, and that the individual is now a subject of inter-national law.
Unfortunately, these hopeful developments seem to have passed the Foreign Office by. In March of this year. I asked the Foreign Secretary
what consideration has been given by Her Majesty's Government to making a declaration recognising the competence of the European Commission on Human Rights to entertain petitions from individuals.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was:
Her Majesty's Government have not made the optional declaration provided for in Article 25 of the European Human Rights Convention concerning the competence of the European Human Rights Commission to receive individual petitions.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 29th July, 1957:
The position which Her Majesty's Government have continuously taken up is that they do not recognise the right of individual petition, because they take the view that States are the proper subject of international law and if individuals are given rights under international treaties effect should be given to those rights through the national law of the States concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c 124–5.]
I submit that that is both bad law and bad politics. If the Government really

believe that, why did they take the trouble to ratify the Convention on Human Rights? Was their ratification never meant to be more than a hollow gesture? The whole object of the Convention is to protect the rights of the individual citizen. If it should happen that those rights are infringed, it will probably be done by his own Government. How can that Government be his champion when it is that Government which may be the offender?
It has been said that one cannot be both judge and prosecutor, and one certainly cannot be both accused and accuser. It is, of course, theoretically possible under the arrangements of the Council of Europe that another Government can take up the individual's complaint, as the Greek Government did in respect of certain Cypriots, but few Governments would be willing to undertake so unpleasant a task which might involve running into serious trouble with an Ally.
For that reason, the Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1953, when it welcomed the entry into force of the Convention on Human Rights, urged on Governments to accept the right of individual petition. It pointed out that an individual whose rights were denied should be able:
… to submit his complaint to an international organ direct without having to seek the support of a Government whose intervention would have the effect of transforming the complaint of an individual into a dispute between States.
By July, 1955, six States had accepted the force of that argument—Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, the Federal Republic of Germany and Belgium. Norway followed, and I think there have been some others since. Why have not the British Government followed suit?
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, when he was a member of the Consultative Assembly and Chairman of its Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, said this on the subject:
I come to perhaps the most troublesome of our problems, the question of the right of inidividuals to petition the Commission…. There are obvious dangers in leaving it to a State itself to decide whether or not it will be cited by an individual or group who complain of an infringement of human rights… There are certain rights which even in time of war or national emergency the Committee of Ministers do not suggest should be abrogated. They are the rights of safety of life, freedom


from torture, fundamental rights of that sort.… We took that as our guide, and we suggest that with regard to these rights there cannot be serious argument that the individual should not have the right to complain. If these rights are so fundamental that they must exist even in time of war, then surely they are equally fundamental from the point of view of the individual having the right to complain.
That was the Lord Chancellor in 1950. Are those observations not equally true today?
Why are the Government dragging their feet? What are their motives? Is it because the Government, having made an express declaration extending the application of the Convention on Human Rights to forty-two British Colonial and Dependent Territories, including Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Kenya, are afraid of the consequences to their reputation which might result if individuals in those territories were to bring their complaints before the Commission?
Article 5 of the Convention, for example, provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. The Convention says:
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law—

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law."
Other cases which are not relevant to my present consideration are then set out. The Article, in my submission, does not permit indefinite detention without trial, as has been done, and is being done, in Kenya and Nyasaland.
But there falls for consideration Article 15 of the Convention, and it is about that that I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some questions. It provides that:
In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of a nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its obligations under international law.
It says:
Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor.

A state of emergency has been declared in Nyasaland and I submit that there has been a clear derogation from Article 5 in the action taken in Nyasaland to detain large numbers of men without trial. Has the Secretary-General of the Commission been informed of the Government's derogation?
I asked that Question of the Foreign Secretary in March and I was told:
Not yet. But the terms of any notice of derogation which may be required are being considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 124.]
What has been done? What are the terms? Have we given notice?
To what extent are the Government honouring the terms of the Convention in Kenya, which is under their jurisdiction? There is a similar derogation of Article 5 there. A number of the men killed in the Hola massacre had never been convicted of any criminal offence, although they had been detained for years. In relation to the Hola men who were illegally maimed and in relation to the widows of the dead of Hola, how do the Government propose to give effect to their commitment under Article 13 of the Convention of Human Rights to give them:
… an effective remedy before a national authority … notwithstanding that the violation of rights has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Have the Hola widows or the men who were injured a remedy before the Kenya courts?
There is not a state of emergency in Northern Rhodesia. How can a breach of Article 5 of the Convention be justified in that Territory, a Territory to which the Government have expressly made the Convention apply? For there too there are men in detention without trial and many persons have been banished to restricted, inaccessible and virtually uninhabitable areas. Is not that a breach of Article 5? I ask again: have the Government dragged their feet in refusing to recognise the right of individual petition to the Commission of Human Rights because they feel that too many complainants may have an unanswerable case?
Is that also why the Government have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights which enables


an individual to sue his own Government before a supranational court, the sort of development in the sphere of law and politics which ultimately alone can save the world? It is no use making eloquent speeches, as Ministers opposite do, about world law and world Parliaments and world authority when in the European scene they refuse to support the machinery to apply such ideas.
The attitude of the Government towards this court has been deplorable. We have taken advantage of our right to nominate a British judge and we have nominated a most distinguished and famous international lawyer, Lord McNair, ex-President of the International Court of Justice. But we pay scant regard to his feelings or to the status of the court when we refuse to accept its jurisdiction.
Here again, we seem to be taking the attitude that what may be good enough for the Scandinavians or Belgians or Germans is not good enough for the British. I wish there were time to develop this indictment further. It is a mournful task. I ask the Government, in the few remaining months of their power, to see if they cannot yet make amends.

11.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), who initiated this Adjournment debate with a restrained speech, was good enough to discuss the question with me earlier. I therefore knew his views and the points that he was likely to make. Many of them are highly legal points and these I will refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I hope, however, that in the meantime, I can give an adequate even though it be a lay answer.
In dealing with some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member, I start with Nyasaland. The existence of an emergency is a question of fact. For the purposes of the Convention, there is no need that there should be a formal proclamation of emergency. In Nyasaland, however, a proclamation was made for the purposes of the Emergency Powers Orders in Council, 1939 and 1956, which recited the fact that there was

an emergency. As the hon. and learned Member said, I told him in March, in answer to a Question, that we were then considering whether there had been any derogation from the Convention under Article 15. Since then, we have decided that we did derogate and a note was handed to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe on 28th May giving notice of derogation in respect of emergency measures in Nyasaland.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to put a copy of that note in the Library at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Allan: I will be glad to do that. It was my intention to do so, otherwise I might have given the hon. and learned Member the terms tonight. It is a fairly lengthy document.
Numbers of Mau Mau have been detained during the emergency conditions in Kenya and notice of derogation there was given as long ago as 1954. It has not been revoked since. I will, of course, see that the hon. and learned Member's questions and remarks about Hola, the widows of those killed and the rights of those injured there, are considered both in the Foreign Office and in the Colonial Office. In view of our debate last week, however, I do not think that the hon. and learned Member would expect me to take that much further tonight.
In answer to the hon. and learned Member's general questions, I am informed that the normal rights of action and remedies are available in Kenya as elsewhere. No notice of derogation has been given in Northern Rhodesia. As far as I am aware, no measures have been taken there which are in derogation from the Convention.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not the case, however, that in Northern Rhodesia there has been this herding of a large number of people into places which I might describe as oubliettes, where they are kept, not, it is true, in prison conditions, but in inaccessible areas where their liberty is at an end, certainly their freedom of movement?

Mr. Allan: I would not like to answer that question off the cuff, but my information is that we have not been in derogation of the Convention.
The main burden of what the hon. and learned Member said concerned the right of individual petition under the Convention. This is a question that has been raised and considered on many occasions since the Convention was signed. It has been the policy of successive Governments since then to accept the procedure of application by States, but not to accept the right of individual petition. This was a decision made, among others, by the last Labour Government. We signed the Convention because v/e were prepared to accept an application by States, but it has always been clear that the British Government would not accept or concede the right of individual petition; and this decision is in full accordance with the belief that these petitions rest properly with the State.
By virtue of certain treaties it may be, of course, that certain individuals obtain benefits. That would apply in the case of commercial treaties, but it does not follow that the enforcement of the application against a State should be a matter to be placed in the hands of the individual. In principle, the enforcement of international obligations is a matter to be settled between the States on whom they rest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred briefly to the Nuremberg trials where, incidentally, he himself played an important part. What one must emphasise about this, however, is that those trials were before a military tribunal. Admittedly, it was set up by international agreement and, in that sense, it was an international body; but its powers were derived from the rights of the Allies as military victors. Its purpose was to punish major war criminals and its status was quite different from the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Court or, indeed, the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
There, it was not a case of a court having compulsory jurisdiction over States, but rather the opposite; of States punishing individuals and not individuals punishing States.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Yes, but my point is that the lesson of Nuremburg was that individuals owe obligations under international law, and not merely States. We

spent nearly a year trying to establish that principle, with the present Lord Chancellor as our most distinguished mouthpiece.

Mr. Allan: All I would say is that the individuals were prosecuted under laws promulgated by the victors following unconditional surrender by the German Government; but it is a highly complex legal matter and I would not like to argue it tonight.
We have had practical experience of applications brought by one Government against another; there have been two applications against Her Majesty's Government, and that part of the procedure has worked. Yet we are still not satisfied that the means by which individuals have the right to petition would work. Experience has shown us that there is a great number of unwarranted petitions. A great many of the petitions made to the Commission have been ruled to be inadmissible, but the fact is that there has been a vast number of them and, living as we do in a world of intense political pressures, there is little doubt that many of those petitions were made for political purposes. I believe that the experience so far gained, coupled with the unexpected way in which international politics have developed, may have caused my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to change his mind from the time when he made the remarks quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; after all it was eight years ago.
Last December, my noble and learned Friend said in another place when discussing politically inspired petitions that, although they would no doubt be rejected, they would in the meantime have achieved their primary purpose of mischief-making propaganda and that, on those grounds, we resisted them. The obligations under the Convention rest squarely on the Government and we intend to fulfil our obligations.
If I may say a word or two about the Court, which the hon. and learned Member mentioned, the point here is that procedure by way of the Commission is compulsory. The acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court is entirely optional, so there is nothing wrong in choosing the Commission rather than the Court. The procedure by way of the Commission, in the absence of a friendly


settlement, leads to proceedings in the Committee of Ministers, which may result in a binding decision. If one looks at Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11, one sees that the rights to be enjoyed by individuals are made dependent, for example, on:
what is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country.
These are not matters to be assessed by a court, at least not in our view. That applies with even greater force to the application of Article 15. As the hon. and learned Member said, that Article provides for derogation from the Convention in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and goes on to say:
In these circumstances the parties to the Convention may take measures derogating from their obligations to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
Those again are political decisions and cannot in our view be decided on purely legal grounds. We are perfectly entitled under the Convention to take this view, but we do not thereby show any disrespect either for the Court or those States which have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. Indeed, the fact that we nominated such distinguished candidates for election goes to show that we wanted to see the best possible court for those who think it should be the ultimate arbiter.
I should explain—I am sure the hon. and learned Member knows, but others perhaps do not—that while, in accordance with Article 39, Her Majesty's Government nominated three candidates,

the actual election was by the Consultative Assembly. The individuals elected are in no sense the representatives of the Governments who nominated them. Of course, they themselves choose their own President and we in this country are proud and delighted that such a distinguished jurist as Lord McNair should have been selected as President.
Throughout his speech the hon. and learned Member rather gave the impression that we had been dragging our feet on this Convention. That is not true because we have not only fully applied the Convention to the United Kingdom itself, but, unlike certain other countries—members of the Council of Europe—we have extended the Convention to practically all our Dependent Territories. Unfortunately, in some of those territories public emergencies have arisen. In these cases the measures taken have been limited to those directly required by the exigencies of the situation and we have done our best to see that the Convention is complied with. We have given notice of derogation as required by Article 15.
It cannot be said in these circumstances that Her Majesty's Government have done other than take the Convention seriously, and I can assure the hon. and learned Member we shall continue to do so.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.